Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 02 August 04 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. given fundamental disagreement about the independence and reliability of sources. I don't think anything would change with an additional reslit. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Pearl Initiative

Pearl Initiative (  | talk | history | 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 is no RS content about this organization from which we can write a proper Wikipedia article. All the sources are propaganda outlets and non-independent low-quality outlets. This page and related pages have been rife with WP:COI editing that seek to promote various subjects. Thenightaway ( talk) 20:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. News outlets such as Gulf Today and Gulf News have to be careful not to offend their government, but they are independent of it. They engage in self-censorship, but once that is taken into consideration, they are generally reliable. The Pearl Initiative does work that is similar to that carried on by other national and regional groups that promote good corporate governance. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • If these outlets are incapable of critical reporting on this organization, how can they possibly be reliable sources? How can we construct a Wikipedia article on the organization when we exclusively rely on pseudo-news outlets that can only report nice things about it? Thenightaway ( talk) 01:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Alexandermcnabb: what do you think? This is your turf (or sand) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the ping, @ A. B. - I'd usually get a notification from the UAE Project but not this time for some reason. @ Eastmain is bang on the money here - Gulf News et al are indeed RS (although some editors like to scatter phrases like 'pseudo-news', which is not ideal - they're the national media of the country and while they might not be your idea of perfect, they're all we got and, unless you'd just like to delete the UAE from Wikipedia, they serve in the vast majority of cases.) - and this article as such passes WP:GNG. Does the article need a good, solid edit, a clip around the ear and sent to bed with no tea for being puffy and promotional? It does - but, all together now, deletion isn't cleanup!!! Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 07:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • "they're all we got" is neither a RS argument nor accurate (see WP:RSP for the countless RS that could be used). It's wonderful news for authoritarians who can repress actual journalism and expect Wikipedia articles to mindlessly repeat the government line which is reflected in the only news outlets permitted to exist. Thenightaway ( talk) 15:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    They haven't been deprecated, despite a number of attempts. They are the UAE's news media. You tolerate Fox and GB News? You can live with Gulf News and The National, trust me. Meanwhile, they are RS and wholly appropriate for WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for clarity!!! Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 07:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the above, especially Alexandermcnabb's comments about reliable sources.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 13:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The threshold standard for notability is "significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject." I don't find the sources here to be "independent of the subject." Neutrality talk 18:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Delete because the subject fails Wikipedia:Notability. That is not to say it is not important or notable in the general sense of the word, but that it does not meet the consensus standards set on Wikipedia for what notability is: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. To say, "this thing is clearly notable, but it is only sourced by non-independent outlets, so those outlets will have to do" is approaching the question backwards — Denying_the_antecedent by preconceiving the subject to be notable and then deeming the sources independent to justify this claim. Rather, we must look at the sources and from that determine whether or not the organization is notable.
    And, while these sources may be reliable, in the sense that they don't report untruths, they certainly aren't independent. Here is a source assessment table:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Gulf News No State-sponsored, and censored by the government. Yes Doesn't necessarily report untruths per se. Yes ✘ No
Gulf Today No State-sponsored, and censored by the government. Yes Doesn't necessarily report untruths per se. Yes ✘ 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}}.
IAmHuitzilopochtli ( talk) 03:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I disagree with your analysis of the sources. The issue of independence is one of independence from the subject. See Alexandermcnabb's comments above.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 04:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
"The issue of independence is one of independence from the subject." is the core issue here. And, BTW, both publications in that there table are privately owned and not 'state-sponsored' AND the table omits every other source in the article! All a very partial view, I have to say! Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 06:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
You are right about them not being state owned. I still have a hard time finding that Gulf news, at least, is independent and reliable; see here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gulf-news. Can you give me WP:THREE and maybe I will reconsider. IAmHuitzilopochtli ( talk) 20:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The question of explicit state ownership is immaterial. What matters is that news outlets in the UAE, whether owned by the state or not, do not have press freedom. [1] Thenightaway ( talk) 20:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Neutrality. Andre 🚐 18:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the subject probably meets on notability in my opinion based on doing a collaboration with the UN under former head Ban Ki-moon and received a grant from the Gates Foundation, among other activities. The problem is more with support from references which is a concern of verifiability rather than notability, but again we can probably lean more towards keeping the article rather than deleting it based on the existing coverage discussed above in addition to any other references online. - Indefensible ( talk) 21:35, 10 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! 02:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Death's Head (series)

AfDs for this article:
Death's Head (series) (  | talk | history | 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. No sources other than the first book in the series. Fails WP:GNG. An WP:ATD would be a redirect to David Gunn (author). - UtherSRG (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Additionally, the username of the article's original editor could be a match for the book's author. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep in some form per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. "Gunn, David". The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. 2022-09-12. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.

      The entry notes: "Author, almost certainly pseudonymous, whose Military SF tale, Death's Head (2007), ... despite the author's announcement in 2009 that a fourth was in progress.  It has been argued from circumstantial evidence related to directorships and family/agency connections of this author's former UK company Gunnsmith Ltd [see under links below] that Gunn is an unacknowledged pseudonym of Jon Courtenay Grimwood."

    2. Sources about Death's Head:
      1. "Death's Head". Kirkus Reviews. Vol. 75, no. 5. 2007-03-01. p. 200. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.

        The review notes: "Now satisfied, Jaxx drafts him into the Death's Head and sends him to yet another planet, where the Death's Head, mercenaries and conscripts battle Emperor OctoV's enemies, the Enlightened, humans transformed by a virus into omniscient cyborgs. Sven acquires a squad of his own but, after desperate fighting, realizes he's been betrayed: The entire action is a feint, the soldiers mere sacrifices in an incomprehensible power struggle. ... Brutal, ugly, visceral and enthralling: the finest military science-fiction debut in years."

      2. "Death's Head". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 254, no. 11. 2007-03-12. p. 43. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.

        The review notes: "Some may accuse Gunn of autobiographical wish-fulfillment that would make a fan-fic author blush, and Sven's adventures read almost like a novelization of a movie or video game. Those looking for hard-bitten military SF will be disappointed. Those who love schlock that stops just short of parody will be delighted."

      3. Wang, David (2007-05-15). "Gunn, David. Death's Head". Library Journal. Vol. 132, no. 9. p. 83. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.

        The review notes: "The militaristic sci-fi setting will appeal to readers on the surface but many of the supporting characters are one-dimensional caricatures. The fast-paced story sometimes feels like an adrenaline rush racing through one's body. We feel invincible for a few moments but afterwards are left questioning the reasons for our behavior. This first novel, a hodgepodge of sf movie scripts rolled into a proverbial mystery-meat burrito, is optional for larger sf collections."

      4. Hopper, Jim (2007-05-13). "Read this column? It's on a need-to-know basis". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.

        The review notes: "Barracks language abounds, since the story's told in Sven's voice. As the stakes get higher -- for the other characters; the stakes for Sven are always life and death -- Sven learns more, recalls more, grows somewhat, even to growing a conscience, complete with a self-imposed morality as fierce as his drive to survive, and often in conflict with it. The breakneck pace made looking for implausibilities irrelevant, even on a second reading."

      5. McKenna, Juliet E. (July–August 2007). "Death's Head, David Gunn". Interzone. No. 211. p. 214. Retrieved 2023-07-23 – via Internet Archive.

        The review notes: "As with any sub-genre, military SF has its clichés. David Gunn's Death's Head ticks off pretty much all of them. Sven Tveskoeg is a rebellious hard man in a légion étrangère on a desert planet. About to be flogged to death, he's saved by the fortuitous attack of humanoid monsters who turn out to be handily telepathic. Since it just so happens he can help them recover a lost chieftain's skull, they don't kill him. This is merely the first fortuitous occurrence that ensures an essentially passive hero survives and prospers through a series of loosely-connected events. ... On the other hand, of course, clichés used with wit and self-awareness can provide a framework for insightful parody. Unfortunately I'm seeing no such satire here. ... There's no exploration of the human condition or broader political debate underpinning this haphazard odyssey in Death's Head.

      6. Folsom, Robert (2007-05-20). "Fantasy & Science Fiction - No Humans Involved and All Together Dead: Who needs humans? - Kelley Armstrong's new novel gets along just fine without them". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.

        The very brief capsule review notes: "** Death's Head (345 pages; Del Rey; $24.95) by David Gunn. This debut is an all-over-the-map, space faring, military sci-fi that doesn't take itself too seriously. Enjoy the shoot- 'em-up."

    3. Sources about Death's Head: Maximum Offense:
      1. "Death's Head: Maximum Offense". Kirkus Reviews. 2008-03-15. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.

        The review notes: "In the sardonically amusing first half, Sven's snarky smart gun, the SIG-37, provides plenty of verbal firepower; the second half, much darker and more ethically challenging, presents ugly truths that no Death's Head fan will want to miss."

      2. Foss, Richard (April 2009). "Guest Reference Library". Analog Science Fiction and Fact. Vol. 129, no. 4. pp. 102–105. ProQuest  215337453.

        The review notes: "The turbulent worlds of Blue War are party planets next to the settings for Death's Head Maximum Offense, which might have been named because some people will find this book maximally offensive. It is the sequel to Death's Head, to which we first met Sergeant Sven Tveskoeg. He is brutal, vulgar, and prefers prostitutes to other forms of relationships because he only understands social rules when money changes hands. His only redeeming characteristics are his intelligence and his loyalty to the soldiers he leads, but both of those are in the service of a corrupt officer corps led by a capricious general who follows the whims of a psychotic emperor. In practice, this means that Sven is often extracting himself and his troops from bad situations caused by stupid orders. ... This isn't to say that this book is just a gorefest-there is a plot in here, a good one involving political intrigue, mutated humans with strange powers and inexplicable agendas, a talkative, sardonic gun, and an intelligent and lovingly protective space habitat. There are a few characters we might like to know more about; Sven's motley crew includes several people who are more interesting than he is. David Gunn can certainly write, and there are many possible lessons in the story of an animalistic but smart warrior who serves a complex society but is more at home among savages and primitives."

      3. Burt, Daniel S.; D'Ammassa, Don; Danford, Natalie; Dziemianowicz, Stefan; Huang, Jim; Hudak, Melissa; Ramsdell, Kristin; Reynolds, Clay (2008). What Do I Read Next?, 2007: A Reader's Guide to Current Genre Fiction, Volume 2. Detroit, Michigan: Gale. p. 256. ISBN  978-0-7876-9026-7. ISSN  1052-2212. Retrieved 2023-07-23 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "Summary: Sven Tveskoeg is a difficult man to control but he is too good a soldier to be cast aside. After being convicted of insubordination, he is enrolled in an elite group to serve in the war between humans and a barbaric but powerful enemy. Sven's unusual mental powers help him to survive and to discover the truth about the nature of the war and the people he serves. First novel."

    4. Sources about Death's Head: Day of the Damned:
      1. Sakers, Don (December 2009). "Death's Head: Day of the Damned". Analog Science Fiction and Fact. Vol. 129, no. 12. pp. 104–105. ProQuest  215336535.

        The review notes: "Death's Head: Day of the Damned continues the story of Sven Tveskoeg, a lieutenant in the Death's Head, the elite fighting force of the Octovian Empire sometime in the distant future. Sven is a genetically engineered supersoldier who lives to kill - and he's very good at it. Humans, alien monsters, game animals, the odd lizard or two: Sven kills them all with a dizzying assortment of weapons, all lovingly described. ... By now you may have recognized what Death's Head: Day of the Damned is all about: it is essentially the printed and bound equivalent of those video games in which one wanders around the neighborhood shooting at everything that moves, splashing blood all over the screen and racking up points. And for what it is, the book does a good job."

      2. Burt, Daniel S.; D'Ammassa, Don; Danford, Natalie; Ford, Marcia; Lamb, Clair; Ramsdell, Kristin (2010). What Do I Read Next? 2010. Detroit, Michigan: Gale. p. 239. ISBN  978-1-4144-4300-3. ISSN  1052-2212. Retrieved 2023-07-23 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "Summary: Death's Head: Day of the Damned is the third book in the Death's Head series by David Gunn. In this installment, Lt. Sven Tveskoeg and his auxiliaries travel to Farlight, capital of the Octavian Empire, for some relaxation. While there, he visits with his old friends, Debro and Anton, and their daughter, Aptitude, who has fallen in love with Sven. Sven is responsible for the death of Aptitude's husband. During his visit, civil war breaks out and Sven quickly realizes that there is no time for a vacation and jumps into action to protect the throne of Emperor OctoV."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Death's Head, Death's Head: Maximum Offense, and Death's Head: Day of the Damned to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 08:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review recently found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 14:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - The sources found by Cunard above show that the first book, for sure, passes WP:NBOOK with a number of reviews in reliable sources. The other two become a bit more iffy, with the third particularly not having great sources, so covering them all in a single article would likely be the best solution. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. GNG is met by Cunard's sources. Rorshacma's analysis thereof is a good one, a single article is probably the sweet spot here. Whether under Death's Head (book) or the current title. — siro χ o 05:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ... Only if Cunard or another editor makes the appropriate additions to the article. We have too many keepers where there is no follow up. -- Bejnar ( talk) 14:52, 5 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, no support for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Cui Liang (handballer)

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

He competed at the 2008 Olympics and the Asian Games in 2002 and 2006 but didn't win a medal at any of these competitions. I didn't find sufficient sources through a WP:BEFORE search to pass WP:GNG. Possible redirect target could be Handball at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament. Suonii180 ( talk) 23:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Withdrawn by nominator, sources have been added to the article which now passes WP:GNG. Suonii180 ( talk) 20:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and China. Suonii180 ( talk) 23:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – I've expanded the article with sources that I think are enough to meet GNG. I suspect more sources could be found with a more thorough search – finding sources takes some work because the events he competed in were 15 or more years ago. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 03:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Mx. Granger's sources seem good on the whole, with the caveat of going through Google Translate. Given that the subject is an Olympian, and the sources provided cover far more than just that, I am quite confident GNG is met. — siro χ o 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. The sources Mx. Granger added to the article.
    2. Mei, Zi 玫子 (2005-10-10). "中国手球队闪亮之星：崔亮 穿针引线的能手" [The shining star of the Chinese handball team: Cui Liang, a master of needles and threads] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2023-08-06. Retrieved 2023-08-06.

      The article notes: "崔亮是优秀的底线球手，他的优秀源于他的天赋和勤奋。在哥哥崔磊的推荐下，14岁的崔亮结束了篮球生涯跨入了手球界，与哥哥一起在海军男子手球队并肩作战。 ... 进队的第一天崔亮就暗下决心，要进一线，要力争进入国家队。无论其他队员已叫苦连天、瘫坐不起，崔亮还始终按照教练部署继续训练，从没喊过一声累，还经常在下课后自己进行加练。一年后，崔亮终于实现了第一个梦想——进入一队，1999年16岁的崔亮实现第二个愿望——进入国家队。从那之后，中国手球界出现了一颗闪亮之星。"

      From Google Translate: "Cui Liang is an excellent baseline player, his excellence stems from his talent and hard work. Under the recommendation of his elder brother Cui Lei, 14-year-old Cui Liang ended his basketball career and stepped into the handball world. He and his elder brother played side by side in the Navy men's handball team. ... On the first day of joining the team, Cui Liang secretly made up his mind to enter the first line and strive to enter the national team. No matter how the other team members complained and couldn't sit still, Cui Liang continued to train according to the coach's arrangement. He never cried out that he was tired, and he often did extra training by himself after class. A year later, Cui Liang finally realized his first dream - entering the first team. In 1999, 16-year-old Cui Liang realized his second wish - entering the national team. Since then, a shining star has emerged in the Chinese handball world."

    3. Qian, Qing 钱擎 (2008-07-30). Wang, Yanan 王雅南 (ed.). "蒋家姐妹欲在水立方创历史 崔家兄弟奥运处子秀" [The Jiang sisters want to make history in the Water Cube, and the Cui brothers make their Olympic debut] (in Chinese). Shenzhen Press Group [ zh. Archived from the original on 2023-08-06. Retrieved 2023-08-06 – via Sohu.

      The article notes: "崔磊、崔亮既是一对亲兄弟，也是国家男子手球队的主力，弟弟崔亮是队长，哥哥崔磊是左内锋。手球场上，手是最重要的武器，两兄弟挽手并肩，是这个赛场最闪耀的双子星。... 两兄弟曾就读于山西体育职业学院，... 而弟弟崔亮，本来是一名篮球运动员，他是在哥哥的推荐下“转行”的，拥有出色身体条件的他，很快就成了国家队的核心，不仅有一般中区队员的攻防技术，还具备了良好的底线个人技术。"

      From Google Translate: "Cui Lei and Cui Liang are not only a pair of brothers, but also the main force of the national men's handball team. The younger brother Cui Liang is the captain, and the older brother Cui Lei is the left inside forward. On the handball court, hands are the most important weapon, and the two brothers arm in arm, are the most shining twin stars in the field. ... The two brothers had studied at Shanxi Sports Vocational College, ... and the younger brother Cui Liang, who was originally a basketball player, "changed careers" on the recommendation of his elder brother. Has become the core of the national team, not only has the offensive and defensive skills of ordinary central players, but also has good bottom-line personal skills."

    4. Qu, Beilin 曲北林 (2001-12-22). "八一男子手球队 来港参加国际赛" [Bayi Men's Handball Team Comes to Hong Kong to Participate in International Competition]. Va Kio Daily (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency.

      The article notes: "在八一队里，崔磊和崔亮是兄弟俩。崔亮还是全运会的最佳男子手球选手。他们两个身高差不多，一个一米九六，一个一米九五；体重也差不多，一个八十公斤，一个八十三公斤。"

      From Google Translate: "In the Bayi team, Cui Lei and Cui Liang are brothers. Cui Liang was also the best male handball player in the National Games. The two of them are about the same height, one is 1.96 meters and the other is 1.95 meters; the weight is also about the same, one is 80 kilograms and the other is 83 kilograms."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cui Liang ( Chinese: 崔亮; pinyin: Cuī Liàng) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 05:44, 6 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 FIBA Under-19 Basketball World Cup. Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

2025 FIBA Under-19 Basketball World Cup

2025 FIBA Under-19 Basketball World Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2025 FIBA Under-19 Basketball World Cup

This stub does not have enough information to be encyclopedic at this point, as is illustrated by the four red links to the qualifying tournaments. It does not satisfy event notability. A naïve Google search shows that the only coverage is routine coverage. The two references are not independent because they are both FIBA. There is also a draft, which is the same as this article. The draft should be kept, and can be expanded as the event is closer. For now, it is too soon for an article that only says that the tournament will happen. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input on redirecting to FIBA Under-19 Basketball World Cup?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 22:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect: This is a a case of WP:TOOSOON. Best to redirect to the article about the champtionship itself until we get closer to this event User:Let'srun 01:01, 4 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 Draftify‎. This isn't a consensus opinion but this discussion has been relisted three times and it seems like the resolution that most participants could be satisfied with. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

KJTB-LD

KJTB-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)

Just-created article on a non-notable LPTV station that hasn't even gone on the air yet! Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 20:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I consider it bad faith to send articles to AFD the day that they are created. Just because it hasn't gone on the air yet is not a valid reason to send it to AFD. PROD is typically the first step to deletion, then if that is contested, then AFD is the next step. I recommend closing this AFD until more time has passed to give the page author more time to add to it.   ArcAngel   (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or draftify The article isn't properly sourced and fails GNG. Happy to send it to draft space if it's TOOSOON or it needs time to be improved. SportingFlyer T· C 00:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

•COMMENT - This article is literally one week old, we need to give it time before doing an AFD. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 01:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 13:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I'm confused: the article says the station has been on the air since 2022 but the nomination says it's not on the air yet.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 16:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article shows information about this Telemundo affiliate owned by Gray Television. It has true info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMarGlines ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 20:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Whatever issues this article may have, this process just seems wrong.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 00:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Yep, the very same concern that I raised above.   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep It's just too early. Is the sourcing probably going to be kinda flimsy for this? Yes. Would a merge to KAIT be worth considering? Maybe. But give the article some time. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 05:49, 8 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! 22:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Applied Biomathematics

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

Company doesn't get significant, independent, reliable, or secondary coverage. Reference 1 doesn't refer to company. Reference 2, 3, 4, and 7 are just the company website. Reference 5 and 6 are lists of funding. Reference 8 is a link to a trademark registration. In general, this looks like a vanity or advertising page for the company. AndrewMatteson ( talk) 20:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I agree with the nomination that there no indication of notability for this company in terms of coverage and documented achievements. This certainly has all of the appearance of a vanity or advertising page for this company. Paul H. ( talk) 04:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I cannot find coverage of the company in even one in-depth independent source. I think, however, that their software package RAMAS is notable. I could support moving/merging to RAMAS, but almost none of the text here would be relevant on such a page, so that puts me in delete. - Astrophobe ( talk) 19:28, 4 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! 22:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Declan Edwards

Declan Edwards (  | talk | history | 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 had a very brief spell in the English Football League, and which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The only coverage available are routine match coverage/previews ( [2] or [3]), not in-depth ( [4]), not independent (a bunch of press releases from his clubs) and the Northwich Guardian piece included in the article which is okay, but leans on quotes from the subject and isn't enough by itself. PROD contested in 2009 without any effort to demonstrate the GNG is met. Jogurney ( talk) 20:29, 3 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! 22:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Fiordaliza Beato

Fiordaliza Beato (  | talk | history | 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 earned at least five caps for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:18, 3 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. While not as clear as might be desired, there is a rough consensus that the individual doesn't not either meet NPOL or non-political notability. If someone would like me to userfy it so content can be added into another article, let me know. Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Rich Whitney

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The article is supported entirely by primary/non- reliable sources and routine campaign coverage. My WP:BEFORE search across across multiple major search engines found nothing beyond trivial mentions of the subject (much of what came up was in reference to different people with the same name as the subject), no reliably-sourced significant coverage that would satisfy the notabilty guidelines. While Whitney did receive a considerably larger-than-average vote percentage for a third-party candidate in the 2006 gubernatorial election, that would be a WP:BLP1E making him worthy of a merge/redirect rather than a standalone article. As a viable alternative to outright deletion, I propose a redirect to 2006 Illinois gubernatorial election.   Sal2100 ( talk) 20:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)  reply

Again, you cite an essay, WP:10YT, not policy. I will say it again: despite the personal preferences of certain editors to eliminate articles on candidates who do not win political office, there is no policy-based reason to delete this article. It very obviously passes WP:GNG, which is the " generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." If you don't like GNG, you should start a discussion elsewhere about it. WP:ROUTINE does not apply since, as has been stated, a person is not an event.-- User:Namiba 21:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Even if an article passes WP:GNG, WP:NOT is still and always a relevant rule. Non-notable former candidates clearly fail WP:NOT unless they are notable beyond their campaign or are especially notable, and have in hundreds of previous deletion discussions. We can easily include some information about him on the pages of the elections he tried to win. SportingFlyer T· C 23:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Ditto SportingFlyer's comments. I would add that WP:NOPAGE applies here as well. A good portion of the article is original research. If pared down to what can be verified by RS ciations (per my WP:BEFORE search), it would essentially be a stub. Given that there appears to little-to-no RS coverage of him outside of the two campaigns, per SportingFlyer, that info can easily included in the relevant campaign articles within the parameters of WP:DUE. No practical need for a standalone article. Sal2100 ( talk) 15:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete completely failed candidate who only received WP:ROUTINE coverage any candidate would have received, and for a minor party. Failed candidates do not have any sort of de facto notability and since almost all candidates receive a base level of media coverage, need to show more than just coverage of their campaigns to be eligible for an article - otherwise we would be absolutely overrun with failed candidates. SportingFlyer T· C 20:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    As an aside, we don't have to lose the information entirely - his positions can be adequately covered on the pages of the elections that he ran in. SportingFlyer T· C 20:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 20:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they lost — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if either (a) they can properly demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have secured their inclusion in Wikipedia anyway, or (b) they can demonstrate a reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than everybody else's candidacies. This demonstrates neither of those things, however.
    As well, since every candidate in every election always gets campaign coverage during the election, such coverage is not the stuff of a permanent WP:GNG pass in and of itself — if the existence of run of the mill campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from WP:NPOL on the grounds of having passed WP:GNG instead, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would become completely meaningless and unenforceable. So campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough, if the person doesn't also have GNG-worthy coverage in other contexts besides the losing election campaigns themselves. Bearcat ( talk) 16:44, 4 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! 19:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

List of figures in nationalism

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

Semi-procedural nomination. A recent attempt to nominate this with the rationale Absolutely unclear arbitrary list of politicians (mainly dictators) and philosophers. Neither the understanding of the term nationalism is explained, nor the criteria according to which the people are selected. In theory, almost any 19th-century politician could be listed here. was misfiled.

I do not see any way to "clean up" this list through editing. Everything from Abraham Lincoln to the Viet Cong is listed. But even after obvious cruft is removed, the only selection criteria appears to be "a politician from a nation", which is too vague to be meaningful.

The hundreds of Category:Nationalists subcategories cover a similar topic in a more approachable way; the page was spun out from Nationalism many years ago. I don't see a unilateral blank-and-redirect to either as being reasonable, but would not be opposed to consensus doing such a redirect. Walt Yoder ( talk) 20:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Walt Yoder ( talk) 20:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as an arbitrary collection of names rather than a valid list. Mccapra ( talk) 21:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Arbitrary and unclear list of names without any precise or meaningful selection criteria, as noted above. Mooonswimmer 01:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The history of this article shows how it grew [10] out of an old version of nationalism [11] in 2005, in a good-faith split. The intent was surely not to end up where it is now, but given the way it grew, I think the history would not be helpful in making this usable list. So, delete without prejudice toward a new article under this or a similar title being created in a better form. — siro χ o 06:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per vague scope. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without prejudice as per Siroxo. As it is, the article is not useful and has over-broad and utterly subjective criteria. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 19:03, 9 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 Ovaltine#History. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

PDQ Chocolate

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

One paragraph article with only 3 sources, does not pass WP:GNG, also failed PROD PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 19:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete can't find sources other than in recipe books. — Karnataka talk 20:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Harmless stub with adequate references already in article. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Source Assessment Table proves otherwise.:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Gone But Not Forgotten Groceries Yes Pass No No Evidence of Reliability(User Generated) No 40% of the page mentions the subject(131 out of 325 words) ✘ No
In the 70's Yes Pass No No(User Generated) No One very short paragraph ✘ No
Ancestry Newspapers Yes Pass ~ Official Newspaper With Paid Subscription No Can't Access Without Paying ✘ 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}}.
  • PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 22:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the Ovaltine article, nothing notable about this otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Ovaltine It was a popular product at the time (it did share the name of a popular game show of the time), but was de facto replaced by Ovaltine's 'rich chocolate' version over time based on brand recognition. Nate • ( chatter) 00:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge is the right ATD for now. Undoubtedly this would pass GNG given enough crawling through dead tree papers, but it's monotonous work sifting through advertisements to find the few actual reviews of the product, so I'll hope we one day have better tools for that. — siro χ o 06:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge Given only electronic sources for an item that disappeared more than twenty years before the Internet, notability has been shown. I agree with siro, above, that paper research would yield dividends, but since the article is so short, I see no problem with a merger, and it would not unduly distort the Ovaltine article. -- Bejnar ( talk) 14:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (selectively and without prejudice) into Ovaltine#History. We should merge mostly the sources. Whether notable or not, the text is too short for a SPINOFF. gidonb ( talk) 21:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Ovaltine per above. - Indefensible ( talk) 05:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge given that PDQ Chocolate was a product line manufactured by Ovaltine, merging the PDQ Chocolate page into the Ovaltine main page would be a good decision. Emma so Bergst222 ( talk) 19:15, 9 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! 19:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Raghbir Singh Pathania

Raghbir Singh Pathania (  | talk | history | 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 four five sources that are used here do not satisfy WP: THREE, none of them contain in-depth stuff about the subject. In fact most of the website and sources used here are unreliable, appears like blog or dubious quality websites.The article certainly fails WP:GNG. Also, the case of WP:1EVENT applies here. Admantine123 ( talk) 19:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Admantine123 ( talk) 19:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka talk 20:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: WP:THREE is neither a policy or guideline, and has no criteria to satisfy; it is a helpful essay regarding sourcing, but isn't meant to be cited in a deletion rationale. Additionally, the nomination very confidently says In fact most of the website and sources used here are unreliable, appears like blog or dubious quality websites; did the nominator even look at the sources in the article before making this bold statement? Only one appears to be wholly unreliable: the Geni(dot)com source. The others are a news article by a military historian; a source from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which provides basic biographical info; the brownpundits.com blog, which while initially seeming unreliable, seems like a subject-matter expert WP:SPS, as it is written by the aforementioned milhistorian and a published mil writer; the fifth source seems to be a joint project by the United Service Institution and the Ministry of External Affairs ( [12]), and is staffed by multiple historians ( [13]); and the last is an article in the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses's periodical. Can the nominator clarify what is wrong with these sources? Curbon7 ( talk) 21:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    For the record, I also am also not completely satisfied with the sources at the moment, I merely contested the notion that they were all unreliable. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Not only does Curbon7 make found arguments against the claims for the sources being unreliable but the arguments for "1 event" are questionable at best. The sources clearly provide a more clear and in-depth biography. You also have to take into context the criteria for what determines "notability" for a military biography as many are usually known for a specific action. For example, Luigi Cadorna is mostly known for his controversial role in the Battles of the Isonzo but his article is relatively short for a military Marshal. Should his article be deleted because of that? Most Medal of Honor recipients are primarily known for just a singular notable action in a conflict that was deemed admirable enough to receive the award. Should all of their standalone articles be deleted too regardless of the quantity of outside information? Even then, the only unreliable source cited in the article (Geni), I've opted to omit and replace it with a book published by the Indus Publishing Company with even more information about his family, tracing itself to nobility which gives even more significance. I could also make the argument of notability doesn't make particularly make much sense either given the wide variety of secondary sources covering Singh Pathania but I think I've made my point. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 02:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, given the above comments on sourcing, the subject appears to meet WP:BASIC — siro χ o 07:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Not thrilled about the sourcing: the article from The Friday Times is long, but the notice of I am immensely grateful to Vasu Pathania for having shared with me information, anecdotes and pictures related to his late father undermines the independence at least a bit. The Brown Pundits texts looks to be a near-copy of the article from The Friday Times, and is written by the same author. The indiaww1.in website is a single paragraph of 55 words. The text from idsa.in seems to be passing mention of a single sentence. The Princely and Noble Families of the Former Indian Empire: Himachal Pradesh is the same. Commonwealth War Graves Commission is a barebones database entry. All told, the only entries here that areeven broadly useful appear to be The Friday Times and Brown Pundits, and they look a bit too similar to make me comfortable. One more good independent source would likely push me to a keep, but right now it looks rather borderline. - Ljleppan ( talk) 09:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Ljleppan: I'm not sure if the newest source I've gathered will change your vote to a keep but I did find a book that mentions Singh Pathania's significance within the 2nd Jammu and Kashmir Rifles at least two times in a book dedicated to the history of the Regiment. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 02:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ SuperSkaterDude45: the way you say mentions doesn't exactly put me at ease, are these just relatively passing mentions of a sentence or two (as they appear to be based on the limited Google Books preview), or are we talking about substantive content of, say, at least a few paragraphs about him specifically? If this is the best sourcing there is, this is beginning to feel more and more like it should be merged and redirected to e.g. Battle of Jassin. Do you know if the subject has an entry in whatever is the local equivalent of Dictionary of National Biography? I'll also note that saying things like his family, tracing itself to nobility which gives even more significance is not helpful; notability is not inherited.
    @ A. B.: just making sure you noticed Curbon7's latter comment where they say they are only contesting the (un)reliability, not the (non)significance? Ljleppan ( talk) 06:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Ljleppan: Now that I've read the entire book, I can comfortably conclude that the entire section of the book is devoted towards the regiment's participation during World War I and Raghubir is mentioned more times including an entire paragraph about his participation and the legacy that impacted his family that the Google Books preview doesn't show. I've added more specific page-citations as well as fixed the current ones as the preview had the incorrect page numbers upon reading the actual book in its full contents. I should also re-iterate that that Pathania has significance given the numerous amount of secondary sources used. Finally, I should conclude that WP:NOTINHERITED has the following in its contents: This does not mean that such associations are never claims of significance (significance is a lower standard than notability, used for sections A7, A9, and A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion); it simply means that the association does not by itself make the subject notable. which is to per say, if I were to claim that Pathania was notable purely on the merits that he was a descendant of a noble family and not as a complimentary indicator for his significance as a miltary commander. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 05:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Himachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the great analysis and work by Curbon7 and SuperSkaterDude45.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:45, 6 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 Mostly Autumn. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Iain Jennings

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

This article has been proposed for deletion before but that was contested. It was also redirected and then that too was undone. The article currently has the same issues that the redirecter had concerns with. Kometalgreat ( talk) 19:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. The first AfD closed as no consensus due to lack of participation. — C.Fred ( talk) 19:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This article has been around for almost fifteen years, and the only sources are the bands' web pages? Clear fail of WP:GNG, and there's nothing in the article, other than being a member of two notable bands, to suggest that he is individually notable. — C.Fred ( talk) 19:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Mostly Autumn because he has been with them for the longest time period. Somewhere in that band's article, it can be stated that he was also a member of Breathing Space and has done some solo albums. Those solo albums have received no reliable notice so he should not get his own article. Also, if there is a history of reverting redirects, make this one stick with some sort of protection. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 12:59, 4 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! 19:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hung Cao

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

Of the 21 sources, 9 are either Hung Cao's social media accounts, election results pages, or an editorial he wrote. Most of the other sources are routine coverage that would be expected for any candidate in a competitive district. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG. I would support making this page a redirect to either 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10 or 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 19:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply


  • Delete Does not seem notable.
  • Delete No credible claim of notability. We go through this on every election cycle. First Law of Politics: "get elected". (The party nomination does not count.) Will reconsider the article then. Military service is not notable enough for an article. Candidate has attracted coverage in the Washington Post and if it had been at the time he salvaged JFK Jr's plane instead of when he became a candidate I would have considered it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 23:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, but this is offering no evidence that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful political candidacy. Bearcat ( talk) 16:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete. Good Morning, I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree with some of the comments noted above. If there's been any issue with citations I apologies and have updated the page this morning. With regard to lack of notability, I have to disagree due to his past military and philanthropic career. If there was nothing notable aside from the fact that he won one primary, I would completely agree with your assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:47B7:9000:876:2302:ABD9:2668 ( talk) 13:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
That's not how this works. If you want to claim that he had preexisting notability before becoming a candidate, then you have to use coverage that he received in those "notable" contexts before becoming a candidate — that is, if you want to claim that he had notability as a naval officer 10 or 15 or 20 years ago, then you have to source his work as a naval officer to 10 or 15 or 20 year old coverage that was given to him while he was a naval officer, and sourcing it to brief mentions of his having been a naval officer as background information in current coverage of an unelected candidacy for political office doesn't cut it. If you want to claim that he's notable for something that happened in 2005, for example, then the source for it has to be dated 2005 — if it wasn't newsworthy enough in 2005 that he would already have gotten an article for it in 2005, then it doesn't become a notability claim in 2023 just because it happens to get mentioned as career background in coverage of something else. Bearcat ( talk) 16:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Normally I would support a redirect to the election page as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates running for federal/national office (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). However, when there are multiple plausible redirect targets, I do feel it is better for the reader using the search function to see the possible results, rather than force the reader into seeing one article over the other. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per User:Hawkeye7. Wikipedia has articles about political incumbents, not challengers. Get elected and then get your article. —  AjaxSmack  22:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete Then wouldn't the same argument apply for DANIEL GADE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:47B7:9000:8567:D68C:16E2:D5C5 ( talk) 03:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's not how this works. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But for what it is worth, Daniel Gade has multiple references to his activities before his 2020 candidacy. (In fact, his article was created three years before his candidacy.) This does not mean that his article would survive a deletion discussion, but it is still better placed to do so than this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Captain Hung Cao, USN (Retired), is a true American hero. He has served honorably in many war zones and has received numerous commendations for his leadership and heroism. As such many of his deployments and assignments were secret in nature and could not be disclosed. These facts do hinder his ability of notoriety. However, Captain Cao is an American success story and deserves to be known by young and old alike. Captain Cao is a highly educated and experienced leader. He is an asset to his country and the state of VA. He is notable in the tradition of former, military trained, US leaders and should NOT be removed from Wiki.

AGM

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 18:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Amirreza Rafiei

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

This article was already nominated for deletion back in October, and the result was delete. Since then, there has not been any progression in the notability or the career of the player in question. Comprehensive failure of WP:GNG, significant coverage cannot be found and is certainly not presented on the article here. Since this player is still young and could become notable in the future, I am unsure if WP:SALT is appropriate, but I leave it to the community to discuss. It must be noted that the same user created both the first deleted article and this one. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 18:42, 3 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! 18:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Julia Benneckenstein

Julia Benneckenstein (  | talk | history | 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 made at least three appearances for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found one piece here, which is paywalled but appears to cover her move to the U.S. to play college soccer. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:32, 3 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. with the comment that the references in this article need to be reviewed and improved. Liz Read! Talk! 18:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

2020 Brazilian Superbike Championship

2020 Brazilian Superbike Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article had been proposed for speedy deletion by criterion A7. I contested the nomination due to the existence of a good number of references. However, further analyzing the article, I realized that many references do not match the content of the article.

As an example of these references, [14] and [15], they are about Copa Truck, nothing about Superbike. ✍A.WagnerC ( talk) 15:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The same with 2019 Brazilian Superbike Championship, 2021 Brazilian Superbike Championship and 2022 Brazilian Superbike Championship. Sources about Copa Truck. ✍A.WagnerC ( talk) 15:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The application for A7 was because the event was an annual summary of the results of a redlinked event, hence inherently not notable. That event has since been shown to be notable in the Portuguese Wikipedia, as evidenced by the discussion taking place on the creator's talk page when you plonked the template of this nomination there. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 15:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm not sure notability in a different wiki necessarily translates (hah) to notability here. Actualcpscm ( talk) 18:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Brazil. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Question why would a national-level sporting competition in a world-wide structure of a sport be unimportant? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 21:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - A7 is not the best argument against this one and it's the top competition for that category of racing in its country. KatoKungLee ( talk) 14:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per my comments above. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 15:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • The first set of sources are from Copa Truck and don't even mention Superbike, in the Results session, some refs are from the 2019 and 2018 season. I think the article has notability however, but the references are a mess. Cainamarques ( talk) 21:00, 8 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! 18:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Yaritza Adames

Yaritza Adames (  | talk | history | 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 made at least two appearances for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:24, 3 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! 18:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Anajaira Claudio

Anajaira Claudio (  | talk | history | 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 made at least three appearances for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:20, 3 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 Scientist.com (company). Liz Read! Talk! 18:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

COMPLi

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

Sourced largely from PR-ish items with flowery language, not seeing notability for software. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

What kind of notability or sources do you wish to see? Slongo1234 ( talk) 20:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. There are no coverage of this firm from mainstream reliable sources. A lot of current sources are from Scientist.com (the parent company) directly and cannot be properly credited. This leaves us with few sources that I am not fully sure credit whether they are sponsored. The subject lacks general notability for sure. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 09:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    !Voting weak delete because it does seem that the subject has won the CPhl award, though I am not sure about the notability of the award itself. Need one more set of eyes on this. TheLonelyPather ( talk) 09:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 19:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Scientist.com (company): The industry award was to Scientist.com for this initiative, and the Pharma Tech Outlook item discusses it in that context too. COMPLi is covered in the article on Scientist.com so a redirect seems a reasonable WP:ATD. AllyD ( talk) 07:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:19, 3 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 American College of Greece. Liz Read! Talk! 18:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Deree College

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

This is an article that should (at best) be merged with American College of Greece if not just speedily deleted. The so called Deree College is in fact the same organization as the American College of Greece. There's no reason to have both articles as Deree's activities make up nearly the entirety of American College of Greece's academic activity and income so there's very little differentiation between the two in practice. They have the same address, are the same legal entity, headed by the same person etc.

Also the article is probably blatant promotion as it's not based on neutral sources, uses ad-like language and makes many unsourced claims. Gnkgr ( talk) 18:18, 3 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 Mississippi Power. Liz Read! Talk! 18:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Eaton Electric Generating Plant

Eaton Electric Generating Plant (  | talk | history | 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. First source is a listing, second source is dead, this source lacks WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Technology, United States of America, and Mississippi. UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete Non-notable (and long gone) structure; I'm not showing that it was a registered historic site. No sourcing found for the plant. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Petal, Mississippi. There are newspaper articles on the subject and it seems to have been a regionally important structure. However, it does not meet WP:GNG.-- User:Namiba 19:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm traveling and don't have time to look for refs for now. However, from reading the article, it sounds historically significant and probably notable. If you redirect instead of keeping, I strongly recommend redirecting to Mississippi Power, not Petal, Mississippi. It's more significant in the power industry's history than Petal's.
    -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 20:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Merger with Mississippi Power does sound reasonable since this is the parent company which built and operated this plant, and was named after Barney Eaton, Mississippi Power's first president. However, small portion of content of Eaton Electric Generating Plant would need to be rewritten since it is accidentally misrepresenting the sources. For example, WDAM source says that plant was "closed in 2012 because it had become less efficient than other plants" while article cites "declining efficiency". The original statement compares the efficiency to that of other plants, while the latter compares the efficiencies of the same plant across time. It is likely, the Eaton plant maintained the same efficiency while the other plants advanced due to incremental upgrades or entirely new designs. Anton.bersh ( talk) 07:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Different Merge/Redirect targets are brought up here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:18, 3 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! 18:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

David Waters (actor)

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

Doesn't contain a single source Whitemancanjump23 ( talk) 07:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep based on the newspaper sources given above. Likely many more in paper sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Add sources I will not take a stance on deleting the article, since it might have notability. However, none is established from the total lack of sources therein. PickleG13 ( talk)
  • Weak keepweak delete(see discussion below). Firstly, I've added the sources referred to by duffbeerforme, to the extent that's WP:HEY. However, a thorough search of Trove and Australia & New Zealand Newsstream ProQuest revealed nothing of substance beyond those 2 short articles (both fairly superficial articles relating to Waters as the host of Matchmaker). Maybe the awards help sway the balance to meet WP:ACTOR but it seems pretty skinny to me. If he was truly notable, surely Google, Trove and Newsstream would have revealed more RSs... Cabrils ( talk) 02:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Cabrils, What's wrong with biographical cuttings held by the National Library of Australia? What makes them useless? duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Duffbeerforme Nothing. But in this instance the Biographical cuttings on David Waters, actor, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals appear to be the 2 articles I added to the page, both from the Australian Women's Weekly. It's a bit unclear from that link you included to Trove but on my independent search of trove it did pull more results but most were the briefest of mentions of Waters in TV guides on what was on TV for a particular day, certainly nothing approaching substantial coverage/RS (as defined). But perhaps I'm missing something and there are other materials? If they are not available online (and so not easily verifiable) it does get a bit difficult to use them as the (sole) basis of an argument to retain the page, doesn't it? As I voted, I'm a weak delete so certainly open to persuasion (my predilection is generally to include). Cabrils ( talk) 04:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Cabrils, where are you getting that the contents is just those two articles? If from my !vote then you've missunderstood me. Those two were found elsewhere. My guess is it contains others, such as the articles that were published when he went naked on stage in Queensland and the speculation over the potential actions of the very conservative police force. (Can you see [18]?) duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Duffbeerforme Indeed I may have misunderstood you. But for the absence of doubt, the link you included above, for what you describe as sourced from the National Library of Australia, takes one to a page in Trove titled "Biographical cuttings on David Waters, actor, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals" but includes no detail whatsoever, and may, on its own description, be a reference to only a single article. The only articles I could otherwise find in Trove were those I described above, being 2 of (arguable) substance. Your "guess" may be right, but in the absence of verifiable reliable sources it would seem challenging to argue that the page in fact satisfies WP:GNG, WP:ACTOR etc. I have just undertaken a search on Newsbank (news database) and found no articles. So for clarity, I have undertaken searches via Google, Trove, Newsstream and Newsbank, and found 2 articles (both fairly superficial articles relating to Waters as the host of Matchmaker, both published in the Australian Women's Weekly) which I have added to the page.
Yes I can see the Facebook link to the 1975 Queensland production of EQUUS. I can't make out the source of those photos of newspaper articles but I would have thought 1975 would be covered by Trove? They might be great, but in that Facebook form I'm not persuaded they meet RS.
For these reasons I maintain my vote of weak delete, but again, I would be delighted to change it if we can find RS establishing Waters' notability. Cabrils ( talk) 05:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Troves coverage is actually pretty limited. LOTS of articles exist that have not yet been added. 1975 seems to be in a bit of a black hole, not in trove which has better coverage of earlier decades and too early for the likes of newsbank. Trove does not appear to have any qld papers from then. Eg David Rowbotham reviewed Red, White and Boogie (a play with Wathers) in the Courier Mail in 27 Nov 1974 but that can't be found online.
Dismissing online sources for not being easily verifiable flies in the face of wp:v. Source(s) have been shown to exist. You can't just dismiss them without a better reason than just I can't see them. Anyone in Canberra can go into the library and request to see them [19]. duffbeerforme ( talk) 05:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
All good points, I agree. I take issue though when you say that I am "Dismissing online sources for not being easily verifiable". I expressly said that the problem with those sources is that "Your "guess" may be right, but in the absence of verifiable reliable sources it would seem challenging to argue that the page in fact satisfies WP:GNG, WP:ACTOR etc" and "it does get a bit difficult to use them as the (sole) basis of an argument to retain the page, doesn't it?". I'm not disputing that anyone in Canberra (or any State Library) would be able to verify those sources. I simply make the point that it is challenging to use such sources, that have not been verified by anyone in this discussion, as the sole basis to keep the page. Cabrils ( talk) 07:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I have added two further refs, including a ref for his Critic's Choice Award. WWGB ( talk) 06:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Good work. That's sufficient for me to justify meeting GNG, ACTOR-- I've changed my vote to weak keep. Cabrils ( talk) 07:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The fact is that the majority of this article is unsourced. In the theater area the first part of the first sentence is the only info that comes from a source. The entirety of the restaurant section is unsourced. The first clause of the first sentence under "television" is the only sourced part. Given that it would be within policy to remove all but the sourced material from this article it would consist of maybe two sentences and the listing of one award. In addition, the notability of the award is not clear. It is in the Elizabethan Trust News, and that publication states: "Critic's Choice, 1975, is not an attempt to sum up the year, but rather to give an impression of the variety of theatre offering." So it's local to that publication and doesn't seem to actually be an award. Lamona ( talk) 01:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Given I nominated the page on the basis of not having a single source and there's now some sources, do I still stand by the nomination?? He was on TV and did theatre but there's really not many sources about him. Still, there are some and for people who pre-date the internet, they shouldn't be discriminated against. If the page was rewritten in it's entirely based on the available sources, I would be open to it staying ie all the fluff and bit about the restaurant was scrubbed. But in the current form it's tainted and I'm still standing by my nomination to delete. Whitemancanjump23 ( talk) 06:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, I do. "Some sources" is not enough - there have to be sources that support all of the content, and the sources need to be significant. Also, the person needs to meet the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. All we have from sources is that he hosted a TV show for children and appeared in a TV commercial; that he renovated his home; and there is one photo to show that he appeared on stage as Charlie Brown. The rest is out of thin air. Lamona ( talk) 15:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think this discussion needs more time and editors to get input about sources that have been added. Sources don't have to be online to be used but having them inaccessible makes evaluating them difficult.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I agree with the reasoning that the majority of the article is without sources and therefore, despite having a good acting career, he did not have a notable one. If more reason is needed, look at the page for the show he hosted, Match Mates which is also what the first clipping is about. It apparently lasted just one year. The reason there is only two clippings is that it never took off. And the show is not interesting enough to get editors to bother bringing it up to even start quality. MtBotany ( talk) 01:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Lack of sources is not a reason to justify deletion: it is a reason to find more and add them to the page, a far more constructive approach. And again, for the record, lack of sources from the internet is not a reason to delete-- offline sources are just as relevant (sometimes more so) as online sources. Having said that, the fundamental issue is does the page currently, or have the potential to, meet WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE etc? I think this is a finely balanced example and could go either way, but I am still inclined to retain my !vote of weak keep. Cabrils ( talk) 02:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    What we're doing looking for online sources in this AfD is grasping for reasons not to delete this article. It is giving one last benefit of the doubt to see if this is an encyclopedic subject.
    Yes, a wonderful offline source could exist. However, it also may not. In the absence of evidence we should not assume that the silence means that there is an invisible unicorn holding its breath in the room.
    I do not see this as a finely balanced issue. I think it is a clear delete. MtBotany ( talk) 03:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I fundamentally agree with you, although I think you have misunderstood my point. I am not suggesting the page should be kept because of some as-yet-undiscovered "unicorn". I simply make the point that offline sources are valid.
    You are certainly entitled to your view and are encouraged to express it. For brevity I won't repeat here my reasons for why I believe this is finely balanced. Cabrils ( talk) 00:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note that the !votes by Lamona and MtBotany are commenting on the current state of the article instead of on the notability of the subject and both fail to address the contents of the book of cuttings held by the National Library of Australia. duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time. The discussion centers way too much on the sources currently present in the article, instead of wether other sources showing notability perhaps exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:06, 3 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. If this article subject does become notable in the future, let me know and I'll restore the page to Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 18:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Stefan Roots

Stefan Roots (  | talk | history | 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:NPOLITICIAN – local government officials are not automatically notable. There are plenty of local sources present in the article, but there's nothing to indicate that this person is notable beyond being part of a city council for a city with a population of ~33,000 people. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pennsylvania. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Not enough here to justify a standalone article for this person. Agree with nom in whole User:Let'srun 18:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: WP:N states that a subject should have significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Roots has received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, WHYY.org, www.Fox29.com and www.delcotimes.com. WP:N does not say that coverage must be "non-local".

Roots is more than "just part of a city council". He won the Democratic primary for the election of the next Mayor of Chester, Pennsylvania by defeating a two term incumbent. Since Chester is a Democratic stronghold and there is no Republican candidate for mayor, he will become the next mayor of Chester in November. WP:NPOLITICIAN states that "This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them."

Chester is more than just "a city with a population of ~33,000". It is the oldest city in Pennsylvania, contains multiple locations on the U.S. National Register of Historical Places, hosts a Major League Soccer franchise and has a significant impact on all of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The mayor of Chester is a major local political figure. See also: List of mayors of Chester, Pennsylvania

If the result of the AfD is to delete, I would submit this page again after the November election because Roots would then meet notability requirements as a major local political figure as mayor. Dwkaminski ( talk) 19:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

You're using a WP:CRYSTALBALL and assuming that he's going to be the next mayor, but mayors are not inherently notable either. Hey man im josh ( talk) 11:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm not assuming he will win. The reliable, independent sources referenced are stating that he is likely to win. Dwkaminski ( talk) 16:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if he accrues a stronger notability claim. City councillors are not "inherently" notable just for being city councillors at all, and Chester is not large enough that even its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability just for being mayors either — and since all local politicians can always show local coverage in their local media, such run of the mill coverage is not in and of itself enough to secure passage of WP:GNG in the absence of some nationalizing coverage demonstrating that his notability is wider than just purely local to one small city.
    For either mayors or city councillors, the notability test is not passed just by using the bare minimum of sourcing necessary to verify that he exists — it's passed by writing a substantial article about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his time in office had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. So the time to start an article about a municipal politician is neither "five minutes after he's declared the winner of the mayoral election" nor "as soon as he wins the primary several months before the election" — it's "after he's already been in office long enough to have a record for us to write about". Bearcat ( talk) 16:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In general, for local officials, we want to see sourcing that shows "more than they exist." We want to be able to write about their accomplishments in office, and the impact they had on their community and their community's development. This standard is true for mayors and elected executives, and especially true for members of the legislative branch of city/county/special district governance. While not required, it is helpful to use non-local sources to show this impact (as we are a global project). -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:26, 4 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 Criticism of democracy. Liz Read! Talk! 15:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Anti-democratic thought

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

This article has been almost entirely unsourced since 2013. The only sections with any sources are those on Robert Michels and Adolf Hitler. I had a look at the cited sources, but none of them refer to any kind of unified "anti-democratic thought". Hyland 1995 discusses the "logical limits of democracy", Blamires 2006 references Michels' "critique of democracy", Fest 1973 mentions Hitler dismissing internal party democracy. Connection between these two figures, or between them and the other figures mentioned in the article, aren't clear at all. Much less is there a clear "anti-democratic thought" that binds them together.

As the scope of this article appears to be entirely synthetic, I'm proposing this article for deletion, or to at least be redirected to Criticism of democracy. Relevant sections of this article could be merged into those on Michels and Hitler. Grnrchst ( talk) 15:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Appears to be WP:SYNTHy and largely unsourced. Doesn't really contribute anything that criticism of democracy doesn't already. — Czello ( music) 15:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep without prejudice to TNT or BLAR. Searching on Google Scholar, there's several results for the term ( [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]) that focus on the sociology and history of anti-democratic movements, rather than their specific criticisms of democracy; I think this is a distinct, notable topic which could be covered here, or perhaps even better at Anti-democratic movements or Anti-democracy. That having been said, as-written the article is a poorly-sourced CFORK of Criticism of democracy and could justifiably be redirected there. signed, Rosguill talk 15:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • TNT, per User:Rosguill. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 15:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • TNT this is going to need a complete rewrite; good job finding sources as above, but starting from zero here is what's needed. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I'm willing to be persuaded that this could be a notable topic, per Rosguill; however, anyone writing such an article would be hindered not helped by the present content, so I think WP:TNT applies here. Most of the sections are unsourced, and none of the sources in the article support combining these thinkers in this way, so it violates WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH. I'd be fine with a redirect to criticism of democracy. WJ94 ( talk) 16:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Oaktree. No prejudice against recreation but creating a coherent article on this topic will not be easy. Mccapra ( talk) 21:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it could be rewritten if users do not think the article is adequate in its current version Gooduserdude ( talk) 21:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to Criticism of democracy, an article with its own problems. There is nothing to salvage in the current version of the article under discussion, which is something between an essay and a list of "not democracy" examples with no central coherence. For the idea of opposition to democracy, there should be a section on this in the main article ( Democracy#Criticism would be better scoped as "Opposition" than "Criticism"), and for the time being there exists a dedicated article on the topic that would be a fine redirect target. I see no content to merge, so best to procede with the "TNT" deletion followed by a redirect for the title as a search term. czar 11:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, basically following Rosguill and Czar. A redirect sounds like a good idea but TNT it first. -- asilvering ( talk) 13:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to criticism of democracy. The content is not usable in its current format, but I don't see any pressing need to hide the history. Eluchil404 ( talk) 14:09, 10 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. Despite the sources, consensus determined that they were not sufficient to establish notability. ✗ plicit 14:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Miss University of Florida

Miss University of Florida (  | talk | history | 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 beauty pageant with a complete lack of secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 13:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Let'srun ( talk) 13:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Uses bare url links, no primary references from the school nor secondary references to justify this. Conyo14 ( talk) 16:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There are some more sources out there, however, I believe that the pageant does not meet notability. Grahaml35 ( talk) 12:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Grahaml35 - I realize on paper it seems odd, but there's over 1,900 mentions of the contest on newspapers.com alone - See here. There's clearly notability. KatoKungLee ( talk) 01:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There's over 1,900 mentions just in Florida alone from newspapers.com about this competition See here. It's clear this is a notable competition. Here's 17 examples, and these are just up to 1965 or so and don't count papers not uploaded to newspapers.com, any radio, television or local magazine mentions - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13], 14, 15, 16], 17 KatoKungLee ( talk) 01:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    With all due respect, all of the sources you cited either aren't significant coverage (ie, only a paragraph) or aren't about the pageant itself. WP:ITEXISTS is not a sufficient reason to keep any article. Let'srun ( talk) 01:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Let'srun - That's not true at all. Please check again. This is why I did the ANI. Keep in mind, that's just up to 1961 with 60 years to go. KatoKungLee ( talk) 01:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    In addition, sources #4 and #5 appear to be the same article. Let'srun ( talk) 01:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    As I just wrote on your talk page WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is not a great argument to make (I realize that it is an essay but I think it bears mentioning) Let'srun ( talk) 01:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Let'srun - Here's what WP:LOTSOFSOURCES says - Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions. Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term. The specific articles I linked to are from newspapers and do not fit that criteria. KatoKungLee ( talk) 17:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    There's a reason why some editors present the sources through the "Source Assess Table Generator" - you have yet to present why those sources are sufficient. Notability requires sources that don't mention the item in passing. Any in-depth source about the origin of the pageant, the people who started it, etc would most likely give solid weight to keeping the article. – The Grid ( talk) 16:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Grid - So far, I haven't actually seen any interest in looking into any of these and have been dealing with 20 other beauty pageant nominations from the same user(with some of these already being deleted before I could look into them, which sadly makes this a race as much of a collaborative research event). First I was told they didn't exist. Then I was told all of the 1,900 search results were just WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, so none of them count. Then out of the 17 articles I posted, the only comment I got was that 4 and 5 were the same, though it wasn't mentioned that the paper published the same article twice for some reason. I don't take those as serious, interested responses.
    Here's how I would sum up each one: 1 - describes what's going on at the pageant. About a paragraph's worth of details plus the headline.
    2 - It talks about some of the things that the winner of that years contest had to do.
    3 - About 2-3 paragraphs worth of what will happen at the contest.
    4 - An entire article dedicated to the contest.
    5 - The newspaper posted a copy of #4 on a different page. We can speculate as to why.
    6 - This talks about how Karolyn Bagg won it, which I think is important.
    7 - About 2 paragraphs on the upcoming contest.
    8 - A quick paragraph about the winner of the 1961 contest.
    9 - A couple of paragraphs about Avie Marie Jenkings winning the competition.
    10 - A couple of paragraphs and a headline about the upcoming competition
    11 - A couple of paragraphs on the result of the 1962 competition.
    12 - A full page article on the competition. This was called a passing mention.
    13 - 3-4 paragraphs on the upcoming contest.
    14 - 2-3 paragraphs on the result of the 1965 competition.
    15 - 2 paragraphs as part of coverage on Spring Frolics week, which this comes during.
    16 - Headline and about a paragraph as coverage of Spring Frolics.
    17 - About 2 paragraphs about it, talking about the things that will happen and last years results.
    - I stopped in the 1960's as I believe there's enough coverage. I think its also important to note that we have 0 access to any news or radio broadcasts from this time and are missing lots of other papers which likely also talked about the pageant. Since it's nearly 70 years old, I think we have reason to assume it got covered and that more sources exist. KatoKungLee ( talk) 20:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Let me re-ask this without thinking about the sources. If you could provide three significant sources that provide in-depth explanation, what would they be? There's an essay about three sources that gives a better idea of looking for general notability. The importance is the quality and not the quantity. – The Grid ( talk) 15:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ The Grid - I'm not wasting any more time on it. I was told no sources existed. I posted sources. I haven't seen much evidence than any of them were read. I was then told that I needed to post a preview about what each one was about. I did and again, it doesn't seem like anyone read them. Now I'm being asked to do another rendition of it. No. KatoKungLee ( talk) 14:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:49, 3 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. ✗ plicit 14:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Laureana Toledo

Laureana Toledo (  | talk | history | 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:NARTIST and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:18, 3 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. ✗ plicit 14:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Glanzing Parish Church

Glanzing Parish Church (  | talk | history | 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) 14:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

*Delete No indication of being notable. No coverage and no suitable redirect target. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 15:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Its been updated and passes WP:HEYMANN. scope_creep Talk 19:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

*Redirect to Neustift am Walde, which (now) includes a section on Glanzing - WP:ATD. A thorough search shows that there are sources for the church not yet in the article - for example, the Historisches Lexikon Wien and Bandion's Steinerne Zeugen des Glaubens. Die Heiligen Stätten der Stadt Wien (1989), pp. 399 f. - which probably would amount to SIGCOV. However,the history of the church makes better sense in the context of the history of the settlement, so for that reason I favour the redirect. Ingratis ( talk) 23:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - this building is a national listed monument - reference added. Together with the other additional sources, also added, this meets GNG. Ingratis ( talk) 14:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as additional reliable sources references have been added to the article that show that it is a national listed monument and passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a scheduled historic monument per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it has been WP:HEYed - surprised the German article wasn't checked during tagging. SportingFlyer T· C 22:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: the sources added since the nomination establish notability per WP:GEOFEAT as a scheduled historic monument. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 09:59, 10 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 14:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Grave Plott

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 3 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 Alive (Ed Kowalczyk album). ✗ plicit 14:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Grace (Ed Kowalczyk song)

Grace (Ed Kowalczyk song) (  | talk | history | 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. NN song - fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Alive (Ed Kowalczyk album): found no additional material. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 16:25, 3 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 14:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Matthew Godfrey (actor)

Matthew Godfrey (actor) (  | talk | history | 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:NACTOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As always, the notability of an actor is not passed just by listing roles — having acting roles is literally the job description, so every actor who exists at all would get an instant notability freebie if listing roles were all it took. Rather, the notability test for an actor requires externally-validated evidence of the significance of at least some of their roles, such as notable award nominations and/or the reception of sufficient reliable source coverage about them and their performances to pass WP:GNG. But the only "reference" here is from a blog, not a reliable or GNG-worthy source, and there's not much other referencing to be found since virtually all of the roles listed were supporting or bit parts rather than leading roles. Bearcat ( talk) 16:58, 4 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! 05:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Dmitry Koshelev

Dmitry Koshelev (  | talk | history | 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:NACTOR. Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY. RPSkokie ( talk) 13:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

    • Hello, leave the article for a week, I'll try to find authoritative sources to keep the article in the public domain. In addition, I will supplement the work with other sources showing the authority of the person. The actor starred in famous TV series and cinema in Russia (you can see in Filmography) -- Sashigay ( talk) 10:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
      • So, hello! On the article: added a variety of authoritative sources, links to international collaborations, as well as links to movies and music videos of famous artists in which the persona starred and participated. Look and evaluate the authenticity of the links and notes, and I have added the sections "Filmography", as well as added a new section "Music videos", in which I gave an example of projects that were associated with the person! -- Sashigay ( talk) 11:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - I went through filmography. When I clicked on all the references and machine-translated the pages, he wasn't listed in the list of main actors, so he must have had very small parts. Also, the Russian Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 18:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - highly likely undisclosed paid-for sockfarm spam. I've blocked the creator. MER-C 14:23, 5 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. Editors are split over whether available coverage is sufficient, with some editors on either side equivocating with weak-ish !votes. I'm opting against relisting, as there's been a fair amount of discussion and the number of weak !votes suggests that this article's sourcing status is on the borderline of notability and likely to generate continued disagreement rather than a clear consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 13:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Kēlen

AfDs for this article:
Kēlen (  | talk | history | 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 honestly cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this conlang beyond a passing mention. All sources currently in the article are links to a fansite, which does not indicate notability. Both previous deletion nominations in 2007 closed as delete. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 13:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 13:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination, I can't find any reliable or independent sources either. -- AlexandraAVX ( talk) 18:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Book sources with significant coverage: [26], [27], [28]. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The first ref looks like the coverage is only maybe a few sentences and a table, the dictionary of made up languages (which is not published by an academic publisher) maybe only devotes four pages to it, which due to the large font size is suprisingly little text. It provides no analysis, and maybe 75% is a word lists and sample text, along with a statement from the author's website why she decided to create the language. I can't access Biting the Wax Tadpole so I can't provide an analysis, but you've provided no evidence that it's significant coverage. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 10:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The first ref has the bottom half of page 87 and the top half of page 88 consisting of multiple paragraphs, which is pretty obviously sigcov for me. For the second source, I'm not sure what you mean by "analysis"; but for me "Characteristics of the Language" is very much adequate. We've never had a requirement for RS to be from an academic publisher; the dictionary is from Simon & Schuster, which is certainly a reliable publisher. The third source is a bit shorter, and while it may not be enough on its own it definitely complements and adds to the other two. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete I'm finding a few passing mentions that do not add up to much at all [29] [30], and the book sources above appear to be of the same type. Importantly, none of these add any analysis - they are just brief summaries of the primary material (which makes up practically all sourcing currently in the article). If you have to scrape together dribs and drabs like this to make up a technical notability pass, then that indicates that we really should not have an article at all. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I will note this badly failing proposal on a similar topic: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on requiring non-plot coverage to demonstrate book notability. While not directly applicable here, it shows a general consensus that a source should not be discounted from being considered significant coverage just because much of it is a summary of primary material. And regardless, my Hildegard of Bingen source is very much an analysis; the author is comparing Kēlen to Irina Rempt's Ilaini. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep-ish Based on sources from King of Hearts and Elmidae, I think the article is only barely just notable. I'm willing to remove citations and cited material from the fansite from the article and give it a makeover to be based on these sources if it gets through this AfD.   Frzzl   talk;  contribs  21:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I mostly edit Wiktionary now, and I admit I've started confusing the policies of the two projects where they differ. I may be mistaken here. But so far as I know, there's nothing wrong with using primary sources (terjermar.net is the author's own website), it's just that primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. So we don't need to scour the Internet looking for replacements for every link that we currently have to terjemar.net, we just need to show that the language has been treated in detail by other writers. Again my apologies if I'm misunderstanding the policy, but this is what I remember it to be. I don't have a vote of my own just yet as I would need to do more research before I can say anything confidently. — Soap — 13:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think you misunderstood anything, Soap. On the contrary, you pretty much hit the spot. Primary sources are fine as long as they are interpreted properly. If an author writes that his/her language is spoken by 500 people, that proves nothing but the very claim itself, but when it comes to linguistic details, the website of the author is definitely the most (if not the only) reliable source. In other words, primary sources are elementary when it comes to verifiability, but they don't help in establishing notability. Secondary and tertiary sources, on the other hand, are needed to establish notability, as well as for analysis and other meta stuff. So there's definitely no need to replace references about linguistic details. — IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 21:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I have to agree with King of Hearts and Frzzl here. Sources are not abundant, but I believe they are sufficient. The Dictionary of Made Up Languages dedicates three whole pages to it (pp. 100–102) in normal lettering (I own the book). Sarah Higley discusses it in some detail, and although David Peterson in his The Art of Language Invention mentions it several times and lists it among "the best languages ever created" (p. 15). In addition, a search on Google Scholar also turns up several results, and even if Kēlen isn't discussed there in much detail, its very presence in academic literature also amounts for something. So at worst, this is a borderline case, and in borderline cases, it becomes a matter of goodwill. — IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 20:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Addition: the article actually mentions another source as well, which unfortunately was hidden in the text, and since it is in Russian, it won't show up in Google searches. Anyway, this book by Shuvalova & Sidorova dedicates no less than 12 entire pages to an indepth discussion of Kēlen. I think that pretty much demonstrates notability, at least enough to tipple the balance in favour of preserving this article. — IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 21:43, 10 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 11:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Air Charter Service

AfDs for this article:
Air Charter Service (  | talk | history | 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 company, not properly sourced as passing WP:CORP. As always, companies are not "inherently" entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on the quality and volume of their sourcing -- but this is referenced entirely to press releases and short blurbs in limited-circulation trade publications, and shows absolutely no evidence of substantive coverage in GNG-worthy media.
Note, for the record, that this article was raised as a WP:WAX argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Production Air Charter -- but, of course, the fact that this article is badly sourced doesn't mean that other article has to be kept, it means this article needs to be deleted. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the company from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 12:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Bearcat ( talk) 12:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comments:
    1. Limited-circulation trade publications are sufficient as long as they are reliable sources (independence, editorial oversight, etc.) per WP:RS.
    2. That said, like even big media, trade publications also publish recycled press releases which are not reliable.
      • The article's current refs are recycled press releases.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 14:59, 27 July 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 13:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - it seems like a fairly sizeable company and there might be more sources somewhere, but everything I'm seeing is very shallow and consists mostly of quotes from executives. (As A. B. wrote, probably recycled press releases.) LittlePuppers ( talk) 05:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete brochure advertising articles. No reedeming features. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and specifically WP:SIRS. scope_creep Talk 10:08, 7 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. With only a small portion of the merge supporters indicating that it was "merge or bust", coupled with the fact that there is a slight numerical lead for Keep with roughly comparable policy reasoning, Keep is the logical AfD result - but quite possibly with a merge discussion in the future. Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Wenja language

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

While this article is very nice, I just don't see how it's a separately notable topic from the video game itself, and feels like something that should be on fandom. The article is primarily sourced to self-published blogs by the creators of the conlang, which should not form the basis of an article per WP:PRIMARY. I do not think there are reliable sources that could be uses as substitutes for them. There was some news coverage, but it's all from the release window of the game in early 2016, failing WP:SUSTAINED. I think some material from the article is worthy of merging into the development section of the main game article, which is well below the size-limit. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 12:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Pinging participants of previous discussion about the Wenja language at WPVG: @ OceanHok:, @ Soetermans:, @ ProtoDrake:, @ Sergecross73: @ Zxcvbnm:, @ Axem Titanium:, @ David Fuchs:, @ DecafPotato:. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 13:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I can't add much more than what was discussed here but I still think it is a good idea to keep the article. For convenience, I will copy here my final reply to that thread:
"Regarding sources, the article as is includes 5 independent sources that focus on the language itself ( Gaming Respawn, Player One, University of Kentucky, Gamespot, Supertext). Zxcvbnm ( talk · contribs) was kind enough to find another ( Game Informer). Jean-Frédéric ( talk · contribs) just left this other source from Sciences et Avenir on the talk page.
This book, published by McFarland & Company, discusses Wenja to a great extent within the context of storytelling: e.g. "Because the languages are functional, and not set up nonsensically or with nonsense words, the player’s sense of interactivity increases as the game unfolds", "Background conversations may not always be translated, contributing to the player’s sense of being immersed [...]. The result is not so dissimilar from learning a language by listening to its practical application, such as the systems taught using Rosetta Stone or Duolingo". This paper published in Revista de historiografía ( Charles III University) discusses the creation and characteristics of Wenja to some lenght (p. 334 ff). This book also mentions Wenja within the wider discussion of conlangs, but I haven't had access to the full contents. This paper talks about Wenja within a discussion about the creation of several different dialects for artistic languages. Ultimately, I think this other book (discussed above) may also be relevant source because, while authored by the creators, it has been published by Oxford University Press, an institution with high editorial standards, and is in no way a self-publication. We have articles for conlangs based mainly of a book publication by their creator (e.g. Asa'pili).
I think an issue that may be causing a small misunderstanding here is that this article is mainly intended to be about a constructed language (that is also a part of a game). Some people in this community may not be familiar with how an article on a conlang looks like, so there are several comments about how the article is "bloated" with information on grammar or pronunciation. However, WikiProject Constructed languages does recommend that samples are included wherever possible, and indeed, in its structure this article is not dissimilar to many other articles about conlangs on Wikipedia (e.g. Brithenig, Quenya, Lingua Franca Nova, Naʼvi language, Interslavic, etc.) A significant part of this exposition is based on primary sources, but is the only part of the article that does so. This is how an article about a language is expected to be structured, regardless of whether it is a natlang or not."
Qoan ( talk) 13:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Edit: Pinging contributors to the article: @ Mika1h:, @ Jean-Frédéric:, @ Wprlh:, @ Rhain:, @ User-duck:.
To give a critique of the sources here, neither Gaming Respawn nor Player One are listed at WP:VGRS, Supertext is the blog of a commerical copywriting company, and the University of Kentucky is the university at which the creator of the conlang is employed. Universities love to promote the work their researchers do, so it cannot be considered independent. The other sources are usable, but are all from the same year the game released. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
You have conveniently forgotten to mention the University of Murcia, the University of Silesia Press, the translation journal Perspectives, and the fact that the book by the creators was published by Oxford University Press and not by the University of Kentucky (and therefore is not promotion by the creator's university, but independently published by a different institution). All these were published 2017-2022, so at least a year after release. Qoan ( talk) 10:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • My opinion on this remains unchanged. This should be Merged into the main article. It looks more like a well-sourced Wikia article than anything on Wikipedia, especially as nothing further has been done with the Primal setting. Put it like this; if I tried taking this to GAN, it'd be shot down double-quick for over half its sources being first-party. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 13:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge selectively to the respective game, or make sure the wholesale article is available on a Far Cry fan wikia that almost certainly exists out there somewhere. It's more appropriate there, where there's looser requirements for subjects having their own article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I've had a look at the sources discussed and added, and I end up thinking that either it doesn't meet SIGCOV or the result is still too dominated by primary sources to be acceptable as a standalone article. The beefiest sources available are primary. That leaves things like two paragraphs in a much larger book or press from the prerelease hype that don't demonstrate significant sustained coverage. The defense above is basically an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and I think it mostly makes it obvious that most other conlang articles are similarly pretty bad (wikiproject consensus doesn't overrule wider guidelines or policy, and that suggests the wiki project's guidelines themselves are at odds with our policies on due weight and coverage.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nominator's rationale is incorrect, as GNG has been proven. Additionally, as there is an entire WikiProject for constructed languages, needless to say it is not unusual for an article on a fictional language to exist. Any argument for merge appears to be based on WP:WEDONTNEEDIT or similar. Simply thinking an article's content is not necessary is not in itself a reason to delete or merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seeing the secondary sources, this seems to be a notable topic, with NOT only "some news coverage ... from the release window of the game", but also scholarly works. I don't know how a constructed language would be best presented, but the comparison with Quenya etc. at first glance seems to support that the way is in accordance with established standards. Even if this were not the case, though, that would be a reason for trimming/editing, not deletion, with the development section being the real-world content one would expect for a Wikipedia article on a topic of fiction. Daranios ( talk) 15:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Quenya and Na'vi are both used in multiple works which are some of the most significant works of fiction of all time, not a relatively minor single video game. The scholarly coverage is essentially passing, aside from a primary account from the creators of the conlang themselves. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I think it would be a massive stretch to call Avatar "the most significant work of fiction ever made". It sold a lot of tickets, yeah, but Avatar is mostly a pastiche of other sci-fi ideas. The Far Cry series is also massively selling and certainly isn't relatively minor. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Avatar is literally the highest grossing film ever made (with its sequel being the third highest), obviously in cultural influence it's dwarfed by the Lord of the Rings, but it far dwarfs the influence of this Far Cry video game. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I feel like that's us putting in our relative judgments - and kind of a reverse WP:NOTINHERITED - rather than looking to Wikipedia's basic qualifier: Do secondary sources talk about it? @ Hemiauchenia: I don't get what you meant exactly with The scholarly coverage is essentially passing? Would you mind explaining more? Daranios ( talk) 18:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. I think the primary offense for this article is not one of notability, but of DUE weight. While there are a small handful of sources that qualify as significant, independent coverage, the article runs positively wild with primary sources that far outstrips the appropriate level of detail for the topic. Yes, there appear to be a few academic papers about the conlang, but that does not give editors free license to wax philosophic academic about fricatives and glottals. Importantly, from the second section (Dialects) all the way through the end of the article, there appear to be a grand total of zero non-primary sources. They're all direct interviews or self-published sources by the author of the conlang. If this isn't torturing the definition of undue weight, I don't know what is. Axem Titanium ( talk) 15:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can you point out where specifically in WP:UNDUE it blocks a source from being used for more than a certain % of the article's non-reception-related content? This seems like a personal stance more than a policy per se. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 16:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Very close to zero non-primary sources talk about dialects and consonants and syntax, so if you exclude the REFBOMBing of Mr. Byrd's self-published sources, the amount of the article that should be devoted to that should be very close to zero. The number of consonants in the Wenja language is trivia just as the number of guns in Call of Duty is trivia. Axem Titanium ( talk) 16:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is more or less the crux of many of the merge comments above, not the ill-conceived assumption that its based on WEDONTNEEDIT. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I would lean to a Merge on the basis that the subject matter of the article, the nature of the language and its technical lexical aspects, are heavily reliant upon primary sources. The descriptive although mostly non-mainstream secondary coverage concerns the rationale and development of the language for the game itself, which seems to be something that could be adequately expressed in the development section of the game. I get the impression that compared to other constructed languages, such as Sindarin or Klingon, the secondary attention to the game is in the context of its use in the development of the primary work, and not an interest in its use or significance beyond it. This has led to a dearth of descriptive sources. No expert on this, so welcome alternative views, and will try to revisit the above positions from others. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 08:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. I think Qoan's argument about academic coverage is a compelling one against the claim that this is non-notable or that attention is not sustained. But I also think Axem's argument has strength. But what this article should cover and whether it's too reliant on primary sources strikes me as an editorial question. Perhaps the use of primary sources, and information about the language itself, should be cut back. But I think that depends on the extent to which it has been studied as a language rather than as a part of a game. If it is being seriously talked about by academics as a language, perhaps all this language talk is appropriate. (Show me the source, and I'll support keeping more strongly.) Josh Milburn ( talk) 11:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as an AfD outcome: GNG is met, sources are sufficient. Now, if there's going to be a merge discussion, I'm perfectly fine with that happening outside the compelled AfD process. Agree that a merger is a far better outcome than deletion, but I believe N has been met for standalone article. Jclemens ( talk) 18:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'd argue that the sheer amount of analysis of the language demonstrated through the scholarly sources Qoan provided should easily prove this has significant enough merit to not justify a deletion nor merge. Adding this information to the parent article wouldn't be of benefit for two reasons: one, adding the language's analysis would bloat the parent article, potentially losing its scope, and two, merely writing a brief paragraph about the language in the parent article wouldn't be enough to convey the significance of the language that said scholarly sources actually discussed. So I believe this is a valid split for both notability and size purposes. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 19:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As I understand it, even the nominator agrees that the subject of the article is notable, the information is verifiable and the text is well-written. The only probleem seems to be WP:UNDUE—or rather WP:BALANCE, since the former refers to minority viewpoints. And that is precisely why merging would be a bad idea: unless we'd kick out lots of valuable information, the article about the game would be heavily out of balance. Besides, Wenja is notable not only as an extension of the game, it is also a rare example of a professionally created AND fully developed constructed language, which definitely makes it notable as a part of WP:CL as well. — IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 11:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't agree it's notable. It's part of a single video game and will likely never be used again. It's the video game that is notable, not this minor aspect of its worldbuidling, and this is largely reflected in the sourcing. Why is the information about its phonology is "valuable", given that it is based entirely on the self-published notes of the author? Why is being "notable as a part of WP:CL" important? WP:CL is a completely dead wikiproject, and has been so for years, it has no value whatsoever. It's also not a new constructed language, but a derivative of PIE, which has been used in other projects, like the film Prometheus, so that's essentially irrelevant. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 11:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Being based on PIE does not at all disqualify Wenja from being a conlang, but simply makes it a typical example of an a posteriori language – just like hundreds of other conlangs like Esperanto, Interlingua, etc. I am not familiar with Prometheus, but based on what I read about it, the PIE used there is merely a matter of one pre-existing fragment and one undecyphered sentence, which makes the comparison moot.
The fact that Wenja owes its notability to a single computer game puts it in the same league as Klingon, Na'vi, Dothraki etc., all of them owing their notability to a single TV show. And doesn't the same thing go for all the thousands of biographies of fictional characters even more? Whether Wenja "will likely never be used again" is something only the future will show and surely not ours to decide.
As for the wikiproject, it doesn't really matter if it's dead or not, what I meant is that it is also a rare example of a professionally created AND fully developed constructed language, which definitely makes it notable as far as constructed languages are concerned. Personally, I am very interested in the latter, even though I don't give a fiddler's fart about games.
At last, a grammar description is always valuable in an article about a language, and the fact that most of it comes from a primary source does not preclude that. In fact, grammar descriptions of constructed languages are almost always based on a verified primary source. — IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 13:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. The article is far too reliant on primary sources, and what's there besides that, much of it is talking about it under the lens of Far Cry Primal. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 05:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge: I think a sub-article for the fictional language is kind of WP:UNDUE, as this is a very small part of a video game. I don't think discussing the fictional language is WP:GAMECRUFT, but such an in-depth discussion of its individual elements (e.g. dialects and phonology), are GAMECRUFT content. It doesn't help that Far Cry Primal itself is also a very inconsequential game and does not really has lasting impact. OceanHok ( talk) 16:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As it stands most of the referencing in the article itself is to primary sources, but the academic sources cited above show that there is much more coverage out there. Also describing an overview of its linguistic features such as grammar and phonology as "cruft" is frankly just demonstrates that one doesn't know how language articles, constructed or otherwise, are typically laid out. Totalibe ( talk) 19:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't think it's cruft, but I do think that too much of the sources providing sigcov aren't doing so in a way that makes it independently notable from Primal. Ie, rather than being about the Wenja language, it's about Far Cry Primal. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 04:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The section of this article that is about Far Cry is solely about the language. There are also some book sources.
    Ultimately this is an article that needs improvement that people are confusing for non-notability. If the sources in the article now were all that existed, I'd have to agree it was non-notable, but there were more brought up in this AfD discussion and the problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE with some effort at cleanup and improvement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 06:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I mean, let's be real dawg, multiple experienced editors simply do not agree that it's a matter of improvement needed. It may be a strict standard, but it's true that something like Na'vi and Klingon are notable outside of the context of Star Trek. If Star Trek never got another series or movie or game or whatever, the Klingon dialect would still be culturally significant. You'd still get articles about it and people studying it and writing about it in significant detail. Going over this article, discussion of the Wenja language/culture is incredibly limited after 2017, and even 2017 only has a few articles that I saw. Looking at works published after 2017, you have "Language Invention in Linguistics Pedagogy", which appears to cover the creation of the Wenja language but not the cultural impact or significance. Doesn't seem to comment on it from what I can see from snippets when I search Wenja. Next, we have " Dubbing multilingual movies into Persian: a case of invented languages as the third language", which I cannot judge how valuable it is, since the snippet is somewhat limited. Finally, "Langues construites et mondes imaginaires: du vice secret aux productions hollywoodiennes", as has been pointed out, is a primary source. Besides these, my search of reliable sources only brought up two other instances where it was mentioned, and both were in passing. What my ultimate point is is that it seems like the Wenja language's relevance lived and died by Far Cry Primal, whereas 'Na'vi' and 'Klingon' aren't coupled to the popularity of Star Trek or Avatar. Virtually all of the sources talking about Wenja were written during the launch/hype/discussion cycle surrounding Primal, and ended once that cycle was over. That should not be overlooked. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 12:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm just going to point out that all the cited sources on the Naʼvi language are themselves only from 2009-2011. Totalibe ( talk) 18:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    There are sources dating later than that, such as this journal article from 2015, which has recieved a number of citations. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    There is also this [31] which appears to discuss the nature of the Na'vi language, published in 2016. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 00:55, 10 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 13:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

David Schittenhelm

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

Professional career boils down to 48 appearances for Heidenheim, then a 3. Liga club, in 2010 and 2011. Best I could find is this article in Süddeutsche Zeitung, in which a brief biography of his was used as an example of a young (borderline) professional player who defies common stereotypes about that group to some extent. Not bad, but also not enough on its own. Dr. Duh  🩺 ( talk) 12:22, 3 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 06:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Raziel (Legacy of Kain)

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

Unlike Kain, this article's reception is mostly build up with trivia articles/sources like listicles and some passing mentions from game reviews. Cannot find any WP:SIGCOV or sources that mianly talked about Raziel per WP:BEFORE somehow. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • So far I maintain my stance on it, though the Kill Screen article recently discovered is an excellent source on him. Just not sure the others are of a similar caliber. I also did a magazine search since this series is from that era, but found solely trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Zxcvbnm the article has been updated and rewritten. Would you be willing to change your vote? Pokelego999 ( talk) 00:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Unfortunately, no. I'm not trying to be petty, but article authors can draw a lot, and I mean a lot of content out of passing mentions - enough to fill an entire reception section handily - without the sources necessarily indicating the character is notable. So, I sympathize with the rewrite, but WP:OVERCOME applies. The rewritten article uses very long quotes, and an ultra-long block quote, to pad out what could be slimmed down to a few choice sentences. If the unnecessary and possibly copyright infringing quotations are removed or paraphrased, it would be half its length or less. As before, the Kill Screen article's the only one in particular I'd refer to as SIGCOV beyond a doubt. There should definitely be a place to discuss Raziel's character on Wikipedia, but it feels like it would be the main article of the series, game or a character list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 02:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'm observing a bit of spuriousness to these AfD nominations bordering on zero effort towards improvement recently. Raziel is not a trickier subject to track down some analysis of than Kain. I was able to grab and integrate four or five thinkpieces discussing this character in under an hour with minimal effort and no use of archives or literature - these address the main complaint. Per WP:BEFORE it would probably make sense to invest some time and integrate sources you find as citations, rather than rush articles to review or AfD. LoK Wiki ( talk) 01:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Only the KillScreen source is valuable, others are trivial. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 15:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    A one-liner that the sources are "trivial" isn't sufficiently clear to me. The Kill Screen article contains less direct commentary on the character than other sources and leans more towards structural comparison. Gamasutra was a much better source for me, so is NME. Can you explain in depth how you're defining value and what you're looking for to reduce confusion? LoK Wiki ( talk) 15:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    My view on things is that Kill Screen speaks about Raziel's metaphorical significance, while Gamasutra/Game Developer is mostly describing the stylistic writing of the intro, and is not actually about Kain or Raziel besides the intro's quoted words and the explanations of those words. NME has a few choice statements on Raziel that can be used, but is mostly a game retrospective praising the game's gameplay and story, in general, not specifically about Raziel. Of course, I encourage people to make their own opinions and not just say that because I said it, I must be right. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 19:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    While I would follow and agree with your perspective as an assessment of article quality, I don't understand where this is codified anywhere as a good or relevant rationale for deletion. Under WP:SIGCOV "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." What you're saying here is that regardless of the depth and extent of attention the sources pay to the character, the character does need to be the central topic of the sources to constitute SIGCOV or else it is invalid - but that seems to be an excessively high or idiosyncratic standard which doesn't exist in policy, and just breeds confusion when at the same time voting to keep something like Sagat held together by only four or five extremely weak list articles, not even a single source of this calibre. LoK Wiki ( talk) 21:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    From GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly". I feel some of them are indirect in how they mention the topic. Also, to be fair, I did not vote to keep Sagat based on its current article state, WP:NEXIST is important to keep in mind. Many people nominate articles because they are bad right now while not taking into account future possibility. However, my keep was "weak" and I have no major issues with redirecting if that is the prevailing consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The requirement of addressing the topic directly is expressly balanced with the caveat that the subject need not be the central focus of the sources at all. While Raziel is not the central subject of either source, he clearly is addressed directly and in detail throughout both. They both contain significant coverage of the character. From the illustrative bad example at WP:SIGCOV, "address the topic directly" has more to do with nixing sources limited to offhand mention of the subject than it has to do with examining the fine nuances of how the character discussion in the article happens to arise. There are other sources which can easily be inserted (including literature). But using a rationale as far into the weeds as this to rule out character study material is idiosyncratic. I'm just looking to nail down a coherent notion of the policies and goalposts to be satisfied, because I've seen a fair share of chaotic subjectivity and non policies at play in these recent AfDs. LoK Wiki ( talk) 23:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While I do feel it needs some paraphrasing on those quotes LoK Wiki added, and some cleaning on the lists so they focus on what's being said and a few of the more questionable ones get deep sixed (the Sterling "characters we'd go gay for" one is particularly...yeah) I feel what's there meets notability now and don't agree with the assertion that it's trivial.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep after massive, substantive expansion of the section being challenged, with even more material sitting in reserve, I see no reasonable way that deletion on the basis given here would be justified. LoK Wiki ( talk) 04:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for working on it. I guess I own you apology after you were forced to work on the article, but that happens everytime during the afd process. I think it passes WP:GNG now, but I can't withdraw since someone voted merge. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 11:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per the work done by LoK Wiki. Pokelego999 ( talk) 00:51, 10 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 13:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Christoph Korn

Christoph Korn (  | talk | history | 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 artist. all sources provided are routine coverage, no independent sigcov provided to establish notability. Jdcooper ( talk) 11:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jdcooper ( talk) 11:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Question - Can an article on a "web artist" use embedded links?-- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 18:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Good question. I'm guessing you mean these in the Web Art section:
    I don't think it's a good idea for digital/new media artists to have embedded URL links, as it opens the door for all artists' articles (and musicians, etc.) to have embedded URL links.
    Embedded links are prone to link rot, and also could contain malware (not sure if WP's server filters out malware or not, tho.) I think we should stick to standard citations, and material on Commons for visuals and other media files. Netherzone ( talk) 21:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:BEFORE does not turn up significant coverage. Some of references in the article show that the audio art exists, but is not significant coverage. The article do not state why the artist is notable and I can't find anything on the web. The sentence "In the last few years, he has increasingly used the strategy of deleting and withdrawing." doesn't mean anything. This article seems like a resume rather than an encyclopedic article. Also I deleted the embedded links-- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 00:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Film, Music, and Visual arts. Netherzone ( talk) 02:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Sometimes artists who are multidisciplinary like Korn, slip through the cracks of history because they don't neatly fit into art historians and critics genre-boxes. This may be the case with Korn, who does a lot of different things from audio to video to film to new media, to writing. However after going thru all the existing sources in the article all I found were primary sources like links to online music sources, press releases, calendar listings, recording announcements, etc. but nothing in the way of SIGCOV. He won a few non-notable awards, the most prestigious is an Honorable Mention from Ars Electronica, but that is not enough for WP:ANYBIO. An online search did not prove fruitful. At this time he fails WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST, and WP:MUSICBIO. I found a professor named Christoph Korn, and got excited because they have a high citation index and thought he might meed NACADEMIC, but alas, that is another Christoph Korn, a neuroscientist. I think the article should be deleted unless someone finds substantial independent coverage in reliable sources; I remain open-minded and am willing to change my !vote if substantial sources are found. Netherzone ( talk) 16:21, 6 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. While there's some back and forth on what the ideal representation of this information may be (whether as a category, split into other lists, or left to another Wikimedia project), editors agree that in the absence of existing alternatives, this meets WP:LISTN and can stand as-is. signed, Rosguill talk 13:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

List of suicides

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

“Dynamic” list. Any useful purpose is better served by a category. Last nomination was in 2008. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 11:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete According to PetScan, there are over 27,000 articles in Category:Suicides and its subcategories. Most are biographies, though I am not certain how many of those are about people who committed suicide. This page, at time of writing, is nearly 500 KB of wikitext, with 1,170 entries. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 12:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The length of the page is how it came to my attention, in fact. Always worth checking out Special:LongPages for anomalies (e.g. Tartan). RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 13:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The rules are quite clear, you shouldn't try to delete a list because you prefer a category. The list has information about every entry so is far more useful than a category is. All entries have their own Wikipedia article. 1365 references in the article also. The length of an article is not a valid reason to delete it. If it ever got too long, then you can split it off into separate list as is already done in Category:Suicides. Dream Focus 13:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I’m concerned that the difficulty of ever making a complete list (of all notable people with their own articles who committed suicide) limits the usefulness of the list. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 08:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    No article has to be complete. An article doesn't have to be WP:useful, although 144,103 people have viewed this article in the past 90 days. Dream Focus 01:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Yes this list is unwieldy, but at best it can be split up. Ajf773 ( talk) 20:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I am honestly not sure how you could split a list like this and keep it (or its splits) manageable. There are over three-quarters of a million suicides a year. There are tens of thousands of people who die by their own hands and (arguably) meet WP:N every year. What possible value would such a list serve? You might as well have an article list all left-handed people or all notable people who have took A-levels. I have to pick Delete on this one. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    There are over three-quarters of a million suicides a year. How many of these have Wikipedia articles? There are tens of thousands of people who die by their own hands and (arguably) meet WP:N every year. A person only notable for committing suicide, and nothing else, would normally not qualify for an article per WP:BLP1E, so they would never make it to this list. StonyBrook babble 14:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Globally, suicide accounts for somewhere between 1% and 2% of all deaths. It is a very common cause of death, more common than homicide (sensu lato, including warfare and capital punishment). If the proportion among people who have Wikipedia articles is even remotely similar, this is bound to be an extremely lengthy list if it is ever going to even approach being exhaustive. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I would assume split into alphabetical sub-articles, ordered by surname. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I think a potential breakup by date would be more helpful than by name. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 07:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I’m not against splitting up (perhaps by date) but as it stands the article is as much an incomplete monstrosity as the Ryugyong Hotel. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 07:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Just a procedural keep as I originated the article and don't like things I originated to "go to waste". But I will also like to add that there should be a limit to the number of nominations for deletion articles can get because otherwise, 15 years from now, we will be talking about the same topic. Antonio The Best sucka of all them Martin ( dimelooooo!) 18:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per WP:SPLITLIST and WP:PRESERVE, there are ways to address the length of an article, if needed—which I'm not even sure this one does. StonyBrook babble 05:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I daresay the potential length of this article, should it ever come close to including all the notable people who qualify, absolutely needs to be addressed. See my comment above. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Hence my Delete !vote. I just don't see a way that such an article is maintainable or ever would be. It is a literally endless list. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 18:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
        What StonyBrook said, Keep.
        @ Last1in There are a many lists on wikipedia that are more "literally endless", just one example: Lists of African Americans. Neozoen ( talk) 21:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
        Why do we need these things? Dronebogus ( talk) 23:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
        Neozoen, if those other endless lists appear in an AfD, I'll !vote the same way. They add nothing to the encyclopaedia but noise; are impossible to maintain; and are inherently controversial (which people to include and why). In fact, the very nature of suicide will make this a magnet for contention since whether a particular death was self-induced is often uncertain or disputed. In answer to Dronebogus: We don't. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete more as a protest vote because we don’t need huge lists of extremely common things with thousands and thousands and thousands of entries that provide no real information, probably aren’t actually used all that much for navigation, are poorly maintained, and largely just exist to crash slower computers. Dronebogus ( talk) 23:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
[32] 144,103 page views of this article in the last 90 days. Some people do use it. My computer is slow and old and cheap and it never crashes. I got it nine and half years ago for 300 dollars and no problems with this article. Internet is faster these days, servers more powerful, so I doubt anyone had a problem. Dream Focus 01:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep, this page has obvious utility. With nearly fifty-thousand page-views per month there can be no doubt that it is used by a great number of people (not that there is any kind of policy-based requirement that a page be frequently viewed in order to be kept, anyway). The page is not too long; Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia, and as such any claim that an article can be 'too long' is questionable to begin with. If the page were 'too long' for some technical reason, which does not appear to be the case here based off what some other editors have said, then the page should be split, not deleted. Anyone arguing that this list can never be complete, and should therefore be deleted, should be made aware of the fact that Wikipedia creates and maintains many dynamic lists which, by definition, can never be complete. This is not a reason for deletion, either. Joe ( talk) 11:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and split when necessary. I agree that a list with thousands of entries would be too big. Thankfully, it's easy to split. A good example of what Wikidata could probably do better than Wikipedia, but for the time being it's certainly going to meet WP:NLIST, contains more information than a category, doesn't duplicate it, and seems like there are many ways to split it up. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Would it be possible for you the “and split” part? RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 11:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as WP:VALUABLE at least for quick keyword searches of suicide cases. Suitskvarts ( talk) 09:56, 11 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) Actualcpscm ( talk) 11:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Bode Osi

Bode Osi (  | talk | history | 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:BEFORE shows no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Even Google Maps shows nothing more than rural countryside. No evidence of notability whatsoever - only weather database entries. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 10:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It has an area of 328 km2 and a population of 76,593 according to the 2006 census.
As for Google Maps, look 6.5 km west of it's "Bode Osi" location to a town it identifies as Bode Olla. There are multiple stores, etc. there whose names start with "Bode Osi". I'm pretty sure that's our town.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Works for me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:04, 3 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. North America 1000 10:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Toon In with Me episodes

List of Toon In with Me episodes (  | talk | history | 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 list with in excess of 600 entries is a pointless list. It fails WP:GNG. This may have a place in Schotts Miscellany, but not Wikipedia. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per other commenters. This is a notable topic. Pokelego999 ( talk) 18:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per others. DCEdwards1966 ( talk) 06:56, 7 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 06:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Protect trans kids

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

While the article is well written, I don't see any sourcing that ties the article together; the article seems to mostly be a grab bag of incidents that use the phrase, because there doesn't seem to be much SIGCOV about the phrase itself. Open to a merge/redirect, but not sure where it should point. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think the page should be deleted, theres important information on the page which shouldn't be tossed aside.
  • Everything on this page matters, let's not delete something so important. SpiderGwen Kizna ( talk) 08:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (and I guess disclaimer as article's creator). Believe the phrase passes GNG. Coverage of the phrase intrinsically focuses on the contexts it is being used in (whether for activism or in media). I looked through the Slogans category and some slogans there also seem to follow the "grab bag" format (like Live, Laugh, Love or Seek truth from facts, or even Shit happens). I think this is probably fine for all of them honestly but idk maybe the goal is to get to a structure seen on something like Eat the rich or Hands up, don't shoot; those two articles have Origin and Criticism sections that I think flesh it out a bit. I think that is doable, so I don't think deletion or redirecting are good moves here.
    also comment I do figure the tying together in the page is the usage of the phrase done in a pro-trans rights sentiment. There are some sources that I still need to incorporate into the article found in the Refideas template on the talk page. I also found these I'll need to sift through: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. I'm not saying all of those are suitable or appropriate for inclusion, I just have to literally go through them to see since I just found them off an additional search of the phrase rn. Uses of the phrase in activism is a "tying together" thing imo, but it's also used in merchandising ( Human Rights Campaign has merch with the phrase fwiw, though I don't think I'd be able to source that since it'd be from that organization's own website). Soulbust ( talk) 09:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Soulbust: " Live, Laugh, Love" does make an effort to talk about the phrase's history, its attribution, and its temporal home. The current coverage of "Protect trans kids", on the other hand, doesn't seem to be able to pin down anything about the phrase as a phrase. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Perhaps more importantly, inclusion of the article on the social media phenomenon does not seem to be SYNTH on Wikipedia's part. Beyond the sources Soulbust is working through, here's a book that directly covers the phenomenon [33]. There are other, shorter references to it in academic journals you can find on Google Scholar as well. — siro χ o 10:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    That book falls afoul of the use–mention distinction: it doesn't actually tell you anything about the phrase as a phrase other than that it was used in activism on behalf of transgender children (which is what this whole article was, and it is just kind of self-evident from the title). It does tell you about the activism on behalf of transgender children that this hashtag represents, but that's fundamentally a different article. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Perhaps, consider the "subject" of the article to be Trans rights and the slogans "Protect trans kids" and #ProtectTransKids, and then consider MOS:AT as a valid reason for not titling the article as such, and choosing a more natural, sufficiently precise, concise title instead.
    This subject is in line with our policies and guidelines. We don't need the entirety of the conclusions our articles make to come from one single source as long we don't make unverifiable conclusions. Given that the phrasing would meet WP:GNG, the crux is ensuring we're not performing OR/SYNTH. We do have multiple sources of verification that this phrase exists as something more than a disparate collection of individual unrelated utterances. This means, we can write an article about it. We can use information from a variety of sources to provide coverage of individual instances including activism tied to the phrase, the meaning of the phrase, etc, as long as we don't derive unverifiable conclusions from them and give DUE weight Perhaps further attribution of secondary source authors and publications would help reduce the risk of SYNTH, I can take a pass on the article for that at some point, but it's certainly possible to include this article in Wikipedia given our guidelines and policies.
    — siro χ o 21:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect. Although this phrase appears in sources, and has been used as a tagline for trans advocates, e.g. [34], I'm not seeing much dedicated coverage in sources concentrating on the phrase itself. That suggests to me it's not an established encyclopedic phrase meeting GNG in its own right, but rather an English phrase that is used in other contexts.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    If the phrase is being used as a rallying call for trans advocacy/activism, then of course the coverage of the phrase will end up also getting into the actual activism (and becoming mostly about that, since it's the tangible, real-world impact of the phrase) like in this source. With that source, this one, and this one, it shows a pattern that this particular phrase is being singled out/used over and over by both activists and public figures and thus shows that this particular phrase has a considerably more notable and meaningful presence in the related activism/advocacy. So bc of that, imo this article has place on Wikipedia as a stand-alone, and straight up deletion would be rather counter to the spirit of the whole goal of this project. I'll continue to work on this article in the meantime. Soulbust ( talk) 21:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - How did this even get nommed? For a month-old article, it's well written and superbly sourced, with RS cites in five of the last seven years. It was promoted for DYK! It is precisely the type of article that strengthens and broadens the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 12:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but possibly consider retitling and expanding scope. There is definitely a decent amount of coverage of the specific phrase "Protect Trans Kids", especially in respect to the Twitter hashtag "#ProtectTransKids" ( [35], [36]), but also in both positive and negative political response to the movement ( [37], [38]). That said, I agree with the nominator that it's not entirely clear from coverage that this phrase is unique from other similar slogans like "Trans kids deserve..." ( [39]), "Support LGBTQ+ youth" ( [40]), etc. I wonder if it would be appropriate to direct similar slogans to this article and title it something like "Transgender youth slogans" (ok, that's a bad title, someone smarter than me can write a better one) or even leave it at the existing title as a common name but make it clear the article encompasses similar slogans focused on trans youth. I'm curious what Soulbust thinks of that idea in particular; I'm not sure if it makes sense, but I think I get the intent of this nom. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 17:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I do appreciate the intent to bring up a possible middle ground here. Though I'll be honest, I think the "Protect trans kids" slogan is much more prevalent (particularly in sourcing I've come across) and notable than the other two mentioned, so I don't really think I'd be all for a retitling. I also think an expanded scope (or what I'm thinking that expanded scope would entail) would probably work well over on the Transgender youth and Healthcare and the LGBT community articles.
    That being said, I have no problem referencing these related/similar slogans (I already did include a mention of similar "Protect trans [x]" slogans in the "Use in activism" section). Maybe a "similar phrases" section can be made to include that "Trans kids deserve..." one, though I think the "Support LGBTQ+ youth" would make it beyond the tight scope of being specifically trans-related, which I think is an important thing to get across in this article (as the "Protect trans kids" slogan came into popular usage in response to government revocations of protections for trans youth). I would say, especially with the sourcing I added recently, that the "Protect trans kids" slogans is quite unique and distinct from the other related slogans, especially or at least in terms of the volume of its usage and specific referencing by both those who agree with its sentiment of supporting trans kids and those who have a more negative sociopolitical response to the trans rights movement. Soulbust ( talk) 20:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well reasoned. I'm sticking with strong keep, and love the idea of keeping the current title and adding a 'Similar Phrases' section. It would add depth to the article and avoid hashing out NN on each phrase that is added to lexicon over time. Great idea. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 22:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Soulbust That meshes with my thoughts here; I think a similar phrase section would work and even just an expansion of the Related phrases... sentence/paragraph is probably sufficient. A glance at Google Trends bears out your claim that "Protect Trans Kids" is more prevalent than semantically similar phrases like "Protect Trans Youth" ( [41]), so I agree it makes sense as the article title.
    FYI @ Last1in your keep rationale is not based in policy; you might want to expand it with your thoughts on the independent notability of this phrase instead of criticizing the nomination, which strikes me as reasonable (even though I disagree with it). Also IMHO "strong" keep and delete aren't particularly useful phrases for closers, but that's just a personal preference. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 00:37, 12 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! 08:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Scott Woodward (marketing executive)

Scott Woodward (marketing executive) (  | talk | history | 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 best source in this article is Associated Press: "Scott Woodward’s career has been nothing short of remarkable. With his keen eye for creativity and unwavering work ethic, Woodward has risen to the top of the advertising industry through a journey that has been both interesting and unexpected." we are told - the issue being that this is 'contributed content' - a press release. Little else exists here to demonstrate notability - passing mentions, (gushy) interviews and pieces about the brands the subject has worked with. The edit history would also appear to involve the subject's own work on this page. All in all, we clearly fail WP:GNG once we get beyond the window dressing. Even the picture was uploaded by an SPA... Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Advertising, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Athletic director out in Washington State that has coverage, nothing for this fellow. Flowery language and PR stuff used for sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • KeepThe contributions of this subject seem noteworthy. It also aligns with WP:GNG. Additionally, the account that was editing the page was tagged for vandalism and all their edits have been reverted. Please check history of the page to confirm. The sources can be improved with research but the page should be kept. Editingforgk ( talk) 10:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN, very standard professional profile. If the subject meets WP:N, delete history / TNT and allow interested editors to write an encyclopedia article in its place. — siro χ o 11:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Not enough here to justify a standalone article for this person. Possibly some COI here as well. User:Let'srun 18:20, 3 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 11:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Tayo Aduloju

Tayo Aduloju (  | talk | history | 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 sources present and available does not have an in-depth discussion about this entity. Ref bombed to promote. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 07:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete / TNT, WP:NOTLINKEDIN also saw COI note from AfC, which seems likely given the detail and tone. — siro χ o 11:09, 3 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 German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

German High Command orders for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war

German High Command orders for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Propose merging this article into German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war. This article is just a list of selected clauses in two orders that are linked at the bottom of the article. Doesn't stand alone. Longhornsg ( talk) 04:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge - we especially don't need forks or content overlap in articles dealing with German atrocities. Such articles have been targets for whitewashing edits in the past. This article doesn't have this issue now but it's one more we have to watch for coatracking in the future.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Delete as I'm not certain there's anything here to merge. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:47, 6 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! 04:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Here's to You (radio program)

Here's to You (radio program) (  | talk | history | 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 sources and no SIGCOV located. Notable at all? InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 04:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Canada. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 04:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All I was able to find were (likely bot-created) articles that reprinted the text of the WP article. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 14:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Although as a nationally-networked radio program this would be eligible to keep an article that was properly sourced, existence isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass WP:GNG on its sourceability. But even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that might not have Googled, I just found glancing namechecks of its existence, and absolutely nothing that would constitute GNG-building coverage or analysis of it at all. It can stay, unlinked, in the historical programming section of CBC Music, but it doesn't need its own standalone article if we can't support one with proper referencing. Bearcat ( talk) 17:04, 4 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! 04:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Charlie Polite

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

Minimal evidence of notability, and most sources I find mention him in passing. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 03:31, 3 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! 04:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Wilson Raynor

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

Long snapper from East Carolina. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Searches by myself and User:BeanieFan11 failed to turn up any WP:SIGCOV. The best sources found were routine transactional announcements lacking the required depth. E.g., here and here. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:29, 3 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. It looks like sources have been found to establish notability. Please add them to the article under discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Can I Pet Your Dog?

Can I Pet Your Dog? (  | talk | history | 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 clear that this podcast is notable Plantdrew ( talk) 03:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Frankly, I don't see any reason why this Wikipedia article should be competing with the actual website in search engine results. The existence of a Wikipedia article degrades search engine results for the website/podcast. Plantdrew ( talk) 03:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment it looks like the sources in The Guardian and Splitsider could be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. If not, the article could be merged to Maximum_Fun#Can_I_Pet_Your_Dog? as an WP:ATD. TipsyElephant ( talk) 10:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep just did a brief search and found this A.V. Club source. This in addition to the source in The Guardian and Splitsider are enough to demonstrate notability. I'll do some more searching and see if I can find any other sources. TipsyElephant ( talk) 10:55, 3 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 Speedy Delete‎. Speedy Deleted under A7 by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mufti Nasiruddin Chandpuri

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

Fails WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search in English, Bengali, and Arabic yielded no SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 02:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, India, and West Bengal. 〜 Festucalex • talk 02:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy A7. This AfD is uncalled for. There is no indication of notability in this one-liner. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ TheAafi: I thought it safer to AfD it because I may have, hypothetically, missed something in Bengali. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete under A7. Deauthorized. ( talk) 05:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete A7. Nothing in Arabic. Will reconsider if any Bengali sources are found. Mccapra ( talk) 21:30, 3 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! 04:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sovereign Capital

Sovereign Capital (  | talk | history | 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 establishment of notability with WP:RS Amigao ( talk) 01:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

These appear in Google News searches and muddy the waters a bit
This is a lengthy article on the UK company. [42]
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
If this article was to survive, it should be renamed to Sovereign Capital Partners, as per the article text and their logo, which would also help distinguish from other usages. AllyD ( talk) 12:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: An article about a finance firm, setting out various of its transactions. The article was better before this IP edit, which also removed the longstanding Advert tag, and at one time listed various industry awards, but these do not appear notable. Searches find announcements of transactions, other firms' press releases about advising this firm on a transaction, appointments, etc., all of which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am seeing insufficient evidence of attained notability. AllyD ( talk) 11:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I am the author of the changes. They were made because the previous article was very out of date and therefore inaccurate. I would also point out there are a number of other private equity firms of a similar size and profile which have a Wikipedia entry Tom2001UK ( talk) 11:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company therefore we apply GNG/ WP:NCORP guidelines. I am unable to locate any source that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 13:36, 9 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 01:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Zac Millar

Zac Millar (  | talk | history | 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:SPORTSCRIT. A career high ranking of 214. No inherent notability in attending Commonwealth Games (like with the Olympic Games). Article curiously says he is a handsome man. LibStar ( talk) 00:44, 3 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! 08:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Finnish-Russian Chamber of Commerce

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

COI article creation (per creator's username). Mentioned in passing in a bunch of sources, but I'm really not finding the required in-depth, independent coverage * Pppery * it has begun... 00:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep: The organization seems to have changed their name to EastCham Finland, see following sources. Searching the English name does not give many results, but using the Finnish name does. A few articles I found are: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. However, around half of these websites are behind a paywall, so I'm not too confident about the quality of those sources, hence the weak keep. ARandomName123 ( talk) 02:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Finland, and Russia. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment the sources found by ARandomName123 are quite strong, Helsingin Sanomat is the largest newspaper of Finland as well as the newspaper of record. Talouselämä is a large economic magazine and Maaseudun Tulevaisuus is a mid-sized newspaper. The former name "Suomalais-Venäläinen kauppakamari" is used more widely in sources. MKFI ( talk) 08:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep In terms of notability, I think the sources identified both here and in the article are sufficient for a GNG/NORG keep. There's also a good ref from 1946 in the fi.wp article. But I certainly wouldn't object if someone stubified the article by e.g. removing the whole "Description" section. - Ljleppan ( talk) 11:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to Weak Keeps from participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per ARandomName123 and Ljleppan the significant coverage is rather obvious from the sources given, this more seems to be the same issue I've seen on Swedish-subject AfD discussions where it's difficult for the WP:AVERAGE wikipedian to participate and judge the sources being discussed. -- AlexandraAVX ( talk) 10:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per MKFI - NotAGenious ( talk) 15:17, 3 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. ✗ plicit 00:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The Bride (Kill Bill)

The Bride (Kill Bill) (  | talk | history | 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:NOPAGE. There are only two Kill Bill films and this article doesn't have so much info in it. All the stuff about the creation of the character can go in the Kill Bill Volume 1 article, anything worth keeping from the "Cultural impact" stuff can be merged into one or both articles as appropriate. Popcornfud ( talk) 00:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud ( talk) 00:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Puzzled Oppose, ?, this page is very well sourced. The Bride is one of the most iconic characters of the era, and is listed as 23rd of the 100 greatest movie characters. An article about her seems fully encyclopedic (especially given the esteem of her character in lists such as linked above) and is sought out by hundreds of readers every day. I remember when the amazing page of Kill Bill characters was sadly deleted (and that should certainly be brought back) and now a request to remove the detailed article of THE main character of the two films? Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    There isn't enough material out there to justify a standalone page. A character from a movie being listed as one of the great movie characters (even on multiple lists) does not automatically mean that character needs a separate page — not when it can all be covered in the main movie article. Popcornfud ( talk) 01:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • There is no main movie article, the character is prominent within two films. Your nomination wants to condense this page into the first. This is a major iconic film character, one of the strongest female characters ever portrayed and probably one of the greatest performances on film (when Uma Thurman wasn't nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress Tarantino said, to paraphrase, "Not only should she have won but they should deliver it to her home personally and not make her come and get it"). The focus should be on improving the page, deleting it surely doesn't seem the way to go. Randy Kryn ( talk) 05:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, very clearly meets WP:GNG. Clicking the links in the AFD template demonstrates this very quickly. Taking a couple minutes, you can find loads of in-depth SIGCOV.
    1. Academic book with 10 pages of SIGCOV: [48]
    2. A bunch more in this one [49]
    3. A few pages more in this one [50]
— siro χ o 11:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you for formulating a response based on Wikipedia policy rather than "but this character is iconic".
I'm clearly on the losing side here, but I am skeptical that these sources, concisely summarised in encylopaedic form, could amount to a useful amount of material to justify an entire page. I am seeing them as amounting to about 1000 words of prose, which would make a juicy section in of the Kill Bill pages but, imo, is not enough to form into a standalone article.
Keep in mind that without the analysis, the current Bride article comprises 1) a plot summary of both films 2) a bit of info about the writing of the character 3) a handful of pop-culture influences, all of which should already be in the Kill Bill articles. Popcornfud ( talk) 19:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article on this could absolutely be improved, it just needs some time, effort, and research. A quick search showed that the character has been extensively discussed in the academic sphere and has even been the central focus of quite a few dissertations. It's just a matter of finding the ones that focus specifically on her as opposed to in passing for the film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Something else to add: I'm adding stuff to the "see also" section I've created. One thing to keep in mind is that because the film is so utterly and completely central to the film a lot of the scholarly sources that seem to be just about the film are really about her in specific. This is what I meant by ones that focus specifically on her as opposed to the film. The ones that would be more about the character will go more into what she symbolizes, her character drives, her changes during the course of the two films, and so on. The ones that are more about the film will take less of a focus and be more about the storyline and characters as a whole, as well as the symbolism in the movie in general. It's sometimes a subtle difference, but there's a difference. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Between the couple of scholarly sources that were already present in the article at the time of the nomination and the sources brought up above, the character easily passes the WP:GNG on their own merits. And using her real name of "Beatrix Kiddo" as the search words bring up even more significant coverage. Its somewhat rare for me to be convinced that a character that only appeared in a single piece of media has enough coverage that goes beyond mentions in general discussions on that piece of media to support an independent article. But, in this case, there clearly is. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I'm pretty confused by the proposal from the nom. The subject has solid sources provided both here by siroxo and on the article itself. No question this should be kept. User:Let'srun 18:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Searching under Beatrix Kiddo, there are whole journal articles comparing this character to Lara Croft from the Tomb Raider games, comparing her to Shakespeare’s Tamora in Titus Andronicus, exploring the Oedipal relationship with Bill, and works exploring her as a white character in an Asian stereotype. There are articles in multiple languages as well. In short, there is a great depth to the research specifically on this character, which clearly shows reliable and significant coverage. I think this was hastily nominated. LingLass ( talk) 23:55, 4 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 00:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

IP Fabrics

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

General notability is lacking. One of many non-notable articles that have been created and have basically been forgotten about that should be removed. Graywalls ( talk) 00:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Oregon. Graywalls ( talk) 00:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete An article about non-notable company that sounds very much like a promotional advertisement. Paul H. ( talk) 02:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: An article setting out the wares of a company which was still being described as a start-up in 2011 local coverage of legal action by its former CEO [51]. Looking at Wayback snapshots, their former website seemed to stop reporting company initiatives in 2015, during which year it was acquired by Yaana Technologies [52]. I am not seeing anything to demonstrate that notability was ever attained. AllyD ( talk) 07:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete only one of the cited sources (the first one) might rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV, but it's rather routine, and all the other are either non-independent or unavailable. I can't find anything else. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 15:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Just not enough WP:SIGCOV here to meet the GNG, and like others I was unable to find anything else. User:Let'srun 18:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete for lack of notability. This article was created by Nwnittany which appears to be a single-purpose account created for promotion of the company. This account was created in December 2010 and created this article and then added a link to it in January 2011 and never did any other edits at all. Anton.bersh ( talk) 21:16, 8 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_3&oldid=1169932635"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 02 August 04 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. given fundamental disagreement about the independence and reliability of sources. I don't think anything would change with an additional reslit. Liz Read! Talk! 22:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Pearl Initiative

Pearl Initiative (  | talk | history | 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 is no RS content about this organization from which we can write a proper Wikipedia article. All the sources are propaganda outlets and non-independent low-quality outlets. This page and related pages have been rife with WP:COI editing that seek to promote various subjects. Thenightaway ( talk) 20:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. News outlets such as Gulf Today and Gulf News have to be careful not to offend their government, but they are independent of it. They engage in self-censorship, but once that is taken into consideration, they are generally reliable. The Pearl Initiative does work that is similar to that carried on by other national and regional groups that promote good corporate governance. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • If these outlets are incapable of critical reporting on this organization, how can they possibly be reliable sources? How can we construct a Wikipedia article on the organization when we exclusively rely on pseudo-news outlets that can only report nice things about it? Thenightaway ( talk) 01:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Alexandermcnabb: what do you think? This is your turf (or sand) -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the ping, @ A. B. - I'd usually get a notification from the UAE Project but not this time for some reason. @ Eastmain is bang on the money here - Gulf News et al are indeed RS (although some editors like to scatter phrases like 'pseudo-news', which is not ideal - they're the national media of the country and while they might not be your idea of perfect, they're all we got and, unless you'd just like to delete the UAE from Wikipedia, they serve in the vast majority of cases.) - and this article as such passes WP:GNG. Does the article need a good, solid edit, a clip around the ear and sent to bed with no tea for being puffy and promotional? It does - but, all together now, deletion isn't cleanup!!! Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 07:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • "they're all we got" is neither a RS argument nor accurate (see WP:RSP for the countless RS that could be used). It's wonderful news for authoritarians who can repress actual journalism and expect Wikipedia articles to mindlessly repeat the government line which is reflected in the only news outlets permitted to exist. Thenightaway ( talk) 15:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    They haven't been deprecated, despite a number of attempts. They are the UAE's news media. You tolerate Fox and GB News? You can live with Gulf News and The National, trust me. Meanwhile, they are RS and wholly appropriate for WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for clarity!!! Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 07:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the above, especially Alexandermcnabb's comments about reliable sources.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 13:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The threshold standard for notability is "significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject." I don't find the sources here to be "independent of the subject." Neutrality talk 18:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Delete because the subject fails Wikipedia:Notability. That is not to say it is not important or notable in the general sense of the word, but that it does not meet the consensus standards set on Wikipedia for what notability is: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. To say, "this thing is clearly notable, but it is only sourced by non-independent outlets, so those outlets will have to do" is approaching the question backwards — Denying_the_antecedent by preconceiving the subject to be notable and then deeming the sources independent to justify this claim. Rather, we must look at the sources and from that determine whether or not the organization is notable.
    And, while these sources may be reliable, in the sense that they don't report untruths, they certainly aren't independent. Here is a source assessment table:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Gulf News No State-sponsored, and censored by the government. Yes Doesn't necessarily report untruths per se. Yes ✘ No
Gulf Today No State-sponsored, and censored by the government. Yes Doesn't necessarily report untruths per se. Yes ✘ 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}}.
IAmHuitzilopochtli ( talk) 03:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I disagree with your analysis of the sources. The issue of independence is one of independence from the subject. See Alexandermcnabb's comments above.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 04:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
"The issue of independence is one of independence from the subject." is the core issue here. And, BTW, both publications in that there table are privately owned and not 'state-sponsored' AND the table omits every other source in the article! All a very partial view, I have to say! Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 06:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
You are right about them not being state owned. I still have a hard time finding that Gulf news, at least, is independent and reliable; see here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/gulf-news. Can you give me WP:THREE and maybe I will reconsider. IAmHuitzilopochtli ( talk) 20:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The question of explicit state ownership is immaterial. What matters is that news outlets in the UAE, whether owned by the state or not, do not have press freedom. [1] Thenightaway ( talk) 20:43, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Neutrality. Andre 🚐 18:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - the subject probably meets on notability in my opinion based on doing a collaboration with the UN under former head Ban Ki-moon and received a grant from the Gates Foundation, among other activities. The problem is more with support from references which is a concern of verifiability rather than notability, but again we can probably lean more towards keeping the article rather than deleting it based on the existing coverage discussed above in addition to any other references online. - Indefensible ( talk) 21:35, 10 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! 02:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Death's Head (series)

AfDs for this article:
Death's Head (series) (  | talk | history | 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. No sources other than the first book in the series. Fails WP:GNG. An WP:ATD would be a redirect to David Gunn (author). - UtherSRG (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Additionally, the username of the article's original editor could be a match for the book's author. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep in some form per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. "Gunn, David". The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. 2022-09-12. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.

      The entry notes: "Author, almost certainly pseudonymous, whose Military SF tale, Death's Head (2007), ... despite the author's announcement in 2009 that a fourth was in progress.  It has been argued from circumstantial evidence related to directorships and family/agency connections of this author's former UK company Gunnsmith Ltd [see under links below] that Gunn is an unacknowledged pseudonym of Jon Courtenay Grimwood."

    2. Sources about Death's Head:
      1. "Death's Head". Kirkus Reviews. Vol. 75, no. 5. 2007-03-01. p. 200. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.

        The review notes: "Now satisfied, Jaxx drafts him into the Death's Head and sends him to yet another planet, where the Death's Head, mercenaries and conscripts battle Emperor OctoV's enemies, the Enlightened, humans transformed by a virus into omniscient cyborgs. Sven acquires a squad of his own but, after desperate fighting, realizes he's been betrayed: The entire action is a feint, the soldiers mere sacrifices in an incomprehensible power struggle. ... Brutal, ugly, visceral and enthralling: the finest military science-fiction debut in years."

      2. "Death's Head". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 254, no. 11. 2007-03-12. p. 43. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.

        The review notes: "Some may accuse Gunn of autobiographical wish-fulfillment that would make a fan-fic author blush, and Sven's adventures read almost like a novelization of a movie or video game. Those looking for hard-bitten military SF will be disappointed. Those who love schlock that stops just short of parody will be delighted."

      3. Wang, David (2007-05-15). "Gunn, David. Death's Head". Library Journal. Vol. 132, no. 9. p. 83. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.

        The review notes: "The militaristic sci-fi setting will appeal to readers on the surface but many of the supporting characters are one-dimensional caricatures. The fast-paced story sometimes feels like an adrenaline rush racing through one's body. We feel invincible for a few moments but afterwards are left questioning the reasons for our behavior. This first novel, a hodgepodge of sf movie scripts rolled into a proverbial mystery-meat burrito, is optional for larger sf collections."

      4. Hopper, Jim (2007-05-13). "Read this column? It's on a need-to-know basis". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.

        The review notes: "Barracks language abounds, since the story's told in Sven's voice. As the stakes get higher -- for the other characters; the stakes for Sven are always life and death -- Sven learns more, recalls more, grows somewhat, even to growing a conscience, complete with a self-imposed morality as fierce as his drive to survive, and often in conflict with it. The breakneck pace made looking for implausibilities irrelevant, even on a second reading."

      5. McKenna, Juliet E. (July–August 2007). "Death's Head, David Gunn". Interzone. No. 211. p. 214. Retrieved 2023-07-23 – via Internet Archive.

        The review notes: "As with any sub-genre, military SF has its clichés. David Gunn's Death's Head ticks off pretty much all of them. Sven Tveskoeg is a rebellious hard man in a légion étrangère on a desert planet. About to be flogged to death, he's saved by the fortuitous attack of humanoid monsters who turn out to be handily telepathic. Since it just so happens he can help them recover a lost chieftain's skull, they don't kill him. This is merely the first fortuitous occurrence that ensures an essentially passive hero survives and prospers through a series of loosely-connected events. ... On the other hand, of course, clichés used with wit and self-awareness can provide a framework for insightful parody. Unfortunately I'm seeing no such satire here. ... There's no exploration of the human condition or broader political debate underpinning this haphazard odyssey in Death's Head.

      6. Folsom, Robert (2007-05-20). "Fantasy & Science Fiction - No Humans Involved and All Together Dead: Who needs humans? - Kelley Armstrong's new novel gets along just fine without them". The Kansas City Star. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.

        The very brief capsule review notes: "** Death's Head (345 pages; Del Rey; $24.95) by David Gunn. This debut is an all-over-the-map, space faring, military sci-fi that doesn't take itself too seriously. Enjoy the shoot- 'em-up."

    3. Sources about Death's Head: Maximum Offense:
      1. "Death's Head: Maximum Offense". Kirkus Reviews. 2008-03-15. Archived from the original on 2023-07-23. Retrieved 2023-07-23.

        The review notes: "In the sardonically amusing first half, Sven's snarky smart gun, the SIG-37, provides plenty of verbal firepower; the second half, much darker and more ethically challenging, presents ugly truths that no Death's Head fan will want to miss."

      2. Foss, Richard (April 2009). "Guest Reference Library". Analog Science Fiction and Fact. Vol. 129, no. 4. pp. 102–105. ProQuest  215337453.

        The review notes: "The turbulent worlds of Blue War are party planets next to the settings for Death's Head Maximum Offense, which might have been named because some people will find this book maximally offensive. It is the sequel to Death's Head, to which we first met Sergeant Sven Tveskoeg. He is brutal, vulgar, and prefers prostitutes to other forms of relationships because he only understands social rules when money changes hands. His only redeeming characteristics are his intelligence and his loyalty to the soldiers he leads, but both of those are in the service of a corrupt officer corps led by a capricious general who follows the whims of a psychotic emperor. In practice, this means that Sven is often extracting himself and his troops from bad situations caused by stupid orders. ... This isn't to say that this book is just a gorefest-there is a plot in here, a good one involving political intrigue, mutated humans with strange powers and inexplicable agendas, a talkative, sardonic gun, and an intelligent and lovingly protective space habitat. There are a few characters we might like to know more about; Sven's motley crew includes several people who are more interesting than he is. David Gunn can certainly write, and there are many possible lessons in the story of an animalistic but smart warrior who serves a complex society but is more at home among savages and primitives."

      3. Burt, Daniel S.; D'Ammassa, Don; Danford, Natalie; Dziemianowicz, Stefan; Huang, Jim; Hudak, Melissa; Ramsdell, Kristin; Reynolds, Clay (2008). What Do I Read Next?, 2007: A Reader's Guide to Current Genre Fiction, Volume 2. Detroit, Michigan: Gale. p. 256. ISBN  978-0-7876-9026-7. ISSN  1052-2212. Retrieved 2023-07-23 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "Summary: Sven Tveskoeg is a difficult man to control but he is too good a soldier to be cast aside. After being convicted of insubordination, he is enrolled in an elite group to serve in the war between humans and a barbaric but powerful enemy. Sven's unusual mental powers help him to survive and to discover the truth about the nature of the war and the people he serves. First novel."

    4. Sources about Death's Head: Day of the Damned:
      1. Sakers, Don (December 2009). "Death's Head: Day of the Damned". Analog Science Fiction and Fact. Vol. 129, no. 12. pp. 104–105. ProQuest  215336535.

        The review notes: "Death's Head: Day of the Damned continues the story of Sven Tveskoeg, a lieutenant in the Death's Head, the elite fighting force of the Octovian Empire sometime in the distant future. Sven is a genetically engineered supersoldier who lives to kill - and he's very good at it. Humans, alien monsters, game animals, the odd lizard or two: Sven kills them all with a dizzying assortment of weapons, all lovingly described. ... By now you may have recognized what Death's Head: Day of the Damned is all about: it is essentially the printed and bound equivalent of those video games in which one wanders around the neighborhood shooting at everything that moves, splashing blood all over the screen and racking up points. And for what it is, the book does a good job."

      2. Burt, Daniel S.; D'Ammassa, Don; Danford, Natalie; Ford, Marcia; Lamb, Clair; Ramsdell, Kristin (2010). What Do I Read Next? 2010. Detroit, Michigan: Gale. p. 239. ISBN  978-1-4144-4300-3. ISSN  1052-2212. Retrieved 2023-07-23 – via Internet Archive.

        The book notes: "Summary: Death's Head: Day of the Damned is the third book in the Death's Head series by David Gunn. In this installment, Lt. Sven Tveskoeg and his auxiliaries travel to Farlight, capital of the Octavian Empire, for some relaxation. While there, he visits with his old friends, Debro and Anton, and their daughter, Aptitude, who has fallen in love with Sven. Sven is responsible for the death of Aptitude's husband. During his visit, civil war breaks out and Sven quickly realizes that there is no time for a vacation and jumps into action to protect the throne of Emperor OctoV."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Death's Head, Death's Head: Maximum Offense, and Death's Head: Day of the Damned to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 08:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, please review recently found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 14:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - The sources found by Cunard above show that the first book, for sure, passes WP:NBOOK with a number of reviews in reliable sources. The other two become a bit more iffy, with the third particularly not having great sources, so covering them all in a single article would likely be the best solution. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. GNG is met by Cunard's sources. Rorshacma's analysis thereof is a good one, a single article is probably the sweet spot here. Whether under Death's Head (book) or the current title. — siro χ o 05:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep ... Only if Cunard or another editor makes the appropriate additions to the article. We have too many keepers where there is no follow up. -- Bejnar ( talk) 14:52, 5 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, no support for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 02:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Cui Liang (handballer)

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

He competed at the 2008 Olympics and the Asian Games in 2002 and 2006 but didn't win a medal at any of these competitions. I didn't find sufficient sources through a WP:BEFORE search to pass WP:GNG. Possible redirect target could be Handball at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament. Suonii180 ( talk) 23:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Withdrawn by nominator, sources have been added to the article which now passes WP:GNG. Suonii180 ( talk) 20:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and China. Suonii180 ( talk) 23:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – I've expanded the article with sources that I think are enough to meet GNG. I suspect more sources could be found with a more thorough search – finding sources takes some work because the events he competed in were 15 or more years ago. — Mx. Granger ( talk · contribs) 03:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Mx. Granger's sources seem good on the whole, with the caveat of going through Google Translate. Given that the subject is an Olympian, and the sources provided cover far more than just that, I am quite confident GNG is met. — siro χ o 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. The sources Mx. Granger added to the article.
    2. Mei, Zi 玫子 (2005-10-10). "中国手球队闪亮之星：崔亮 穿针引线的能手" [The shining star of the Chinese handball team: Cui Liang, a master of needles and threads] (in Chinese). Sina Corporation. Archived from the original on 2023-08-06. Retrieved 2023-08-06.

      The article notes: "崔亮是优秀的底线球手，他的优秀源于他的天赋和勤奋。在哥哥崔磊的推荐下，14岁的崔亮结束了篮球生涯跨入了手球界，与哥哥一起在海军男子手球队并肩作战。 ... 进队的第一天崔亮就暗下决心，要进一线，要力争进入国家队。无论其他队员已叫苦连天、瘫坐不起，崔亮还始终按照教练部署继续训练，从没喊过一声累，还经常在下课后自己进行加练。一年后，崔亮终于实现了第一个梦想——进入一队，1999年16岁的崔亮实现第二个愿望——进入国家队。从那之后，中国手球界出现了一颗闪亮之星。"

      From Google Translate: "Cui Liang is an excellent baseline player, his excellence stems from his talent and hard work. Under the recommendation of his elder brother Cui Lei, 14-year-old Cui Liang ended his basketball career and stepped into the handball world. He and his elder brother played side by side in the Navy men's handball team. ... On the first day of joining the team, Cui Liang secretly made up his mind to enter the first line and strive to enter the national team. No matter how the other team members complained and couldn't sit still, Cui Liang continued to train according to the coach's arrangement. He never cried out that he was tired, and he often did extra training by himself after class. A year later, Cui Liang finally realized his first dream - entering the first team. In 1999, 16-year-old Cui Liang realized his second wish - entering the national team. Since then, a shining star has emerged in the Chinese handball world."

    3. Qian, Qing 钱擎 (2008-07-30). Wang, Yanan 王雅南 (ed.). "蒋家姐妹欲在水立方创历史 崔家兄弟奥运处子秀" [The Jiang sisters want to make history in the Water Cube, and the Cui brothers make their Olympic debut] (in Chinese). Shenzhen Press Group [ zh. Archived from the original on 2023-08-06. Retrieved 2023-08-06 – via Sohu.

      The article notes: "崔磊、崔亮既是一对亲兄弟，也是国家男子手球队的主力，弟弟崔亮是队长，哥哥崔磊是左内锋。手球场上，手是最重要的武器，两兄弟挽手并肩，是这个赛场最闪耀的双子星。... 两兄弟曾就读于山西体育职业学院，... 而弟弟崔亮，本来是一名篮球运动员，他是在哥哥的推荐下“转行”的，拥有出色身体条件的他，很快就成了国家队的核心，不仅有一般中区队员的攻防技术，还具备了良好的底线个人技术。"

      From Google Translate: "Cui Lei and Cui Liang are not only a pair of brothers, but also the main force of the national men's handball team. The younger brother Cui Liang is the captain, and the older brother Cui Lei is the left inside forward. On the handball court, hands are the most important weapon, and the two brothers arm in arm, are the most shining twin stars in the field. ... The two brothers had studied at Shanxi Sports Vocational College, ... and the younger brother Cui Liang, who was originally a basketball player, "changed careers" on the recommendation of his elder brother. Has become the core of the national team, not only has the offensive and defensive skills of ordinary central players, but also has good bottom-line personal skills."

    4. Qu, Beilin 曲北林 (2001-12-22). "八一男子手球队 来港参加国际赛" [Bayi Men's Handball Team Comes to Hong Kong to Participate in International Competition]. Va Kio Daily (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency.

      The article notes: "在八一队里，崔磊和崔亮是兄弟俩。崔亮还是全运会的最佳男子手球选手。他们两个身高差不多，一个一米九六，一个一米九五；体重也差不多，一个八十公斤，一个八十三公斤。"

      From Google Translate: "In the Bayi team, Cui Lei and Cui Liang are brothers. Cui Liang was also the best male handball player in the National Games. The two of them are about the same height, one is 1.96 meters and the other is 1.95 meters; the weight is also about the same, one is 80 kilograms and the other is 83 kilograms."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Cui Liang ( Chinese: 崔亮; pinyin: Cuī Liàng) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 05:44, 6 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 FIBA Under-19 Basketball World Cup. Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

2025 FIBA Under-19 Basketball World Cup

2025 FIBA Under-19 Basketball World Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2025 FIBA Under-19 Basketball World Cup

This stub does not have enough information to be encyclopedic at this point, as is illustrated by the four red links to the qualifying tournaments. It does not satisfy event notability. A naïve Google search shows that the only coverage is routine coverage. The two references are not independent because they are both FIBA. There is also a draft, which is the same as this article. The draft should be kept, and can be expanded as the event is closer. For now, it is too soon for an article that only says that the tournament will happen. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input on redirecting to FIBA Under-19 Basketball World Cup?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 22:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect: This is a a case of WP:TOOSOON. Best to redirect to the article about the champtionship itself until we get closer to this event User:Let'srun 01:01, 4 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 Draftify‎. This isn't a consensus opinion but this discussion has been relisted three times and it seems like the resolution that most participants could be satisfied with. Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

KJTB-LD

KJTB-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)

Just-created article on a non-notable LPTV station that hasn't even gone on the air yet! Mvcg66b3r ( talk) 20:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment I consider it bad faith to send articles to AFD the day that they are created. Just because it hasn't gone on the air yet is not a valid reason to send it to AFD. PROD is typically the first step to deletion, then if that is contested, then AFD is the next step. I recommend closing this AFD until more time has passed to give the page author more time to add to it.   ArcAngel   (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or draftify The article isn't properly sourced and fails GNG. Happy to send it to draft space if it's TOOSOON or it needs time to be improved. SportingFlyer T· C 00:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

•COMMENT - This article is literally one week old, we need to give it time before doing an AFD. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 01:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 13:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I'm confused: the article says the station has been on the air since 2022 but the nomination says it's not on the air yet.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 16:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This article shows information about this Telemundo affiliate owned by Gray Television. It has true info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMarGlines ( talk • contribs) 18:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 20:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Whatever issues this article may have, this process just seems wrong.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 00:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Yep, the very same concern that I raised above.   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep It's just too early. Is the sourcing probably going to be kinda flimsy for this? Yes. Would a merge to KAIT be worth considering? Maybe. But give the article some time. Sammi Brie (she/her •  t • c) 05:49, 8 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! 22:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Applied Biomathematics

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

Company doesn't get significant, independent, reliable, or secondary coverage. Reference 1 doesn't refer to company. Reference 2, 3, 4, and 7 are just the company website. Reference 5 and 6 are lists of funding. Reference 8 is a link to a trademark registration. In general, this looks like a vanity or advertising page for the company. AndrewMatteson ( talk) 20:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I agree with the nomination that there no indication of notability for this company in terms of coverage and documented achievements. This certainly has all of the appearance of a vanity or advertising page for this company. Paul H. ( talk) 04:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I cannot find coverage of the company in even one in-depth independent source. I think, however, that their software package RAMAS is notable. I could support moving/merging to RAMAS, but almost none of the text here would be relevant on such a page, so that puts me in delete. - Astrophobe ( talk) 19:28, 4 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! 22:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Declan Edwards

Declan Edwards (  | talk | history | 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 had a very brief spell in the English Football League, and which comprehensively fails WP:GNG. The only coverage available are routine match coverage/previews ( [2] or [3]), not in-depth ( [4]), not independent (a bunch of press releases from his clubs) and the Northwich Guardian piece included in the article which is okay, but leans on quotes from the subject and isn't enough by itself. PROD contested in 2009 without any effort to demonstrate the GNG is met. Jogurney ( talk) 20:29, 3 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! 22:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Fiordaliza Beato

Fiordaliza Beato (  | talk | history | 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 earned at least five caps for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 22:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:18, 3 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. While not as clear as might be desired, there is a rough consensus that the individual doesn't not either meet NPOL or non-political notability. If someone would like me to userfy it so content can be added into another article, let me know. Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Rich Whitney

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The article is supported entirely by primary/non- reliable sources and routine campaign coverage. My WP:BEFORE search across across multiple major search engines found nothing beyond trivial mentions of the subject (much of what came up was in reference to different people with the same name as the subject), no reliably-sourced significant coverage that would satisfy the notabilty guidelines. While Whitney did receive a considerably larger-than-average vote percentage for a third-party candidate in the 2006 gubernatorial election, that would be a WP:BLP1E making him worthy of a merge/redirect rather than a standalone article. As a viable alternative to outright deletion, I propose a redirect to 2006 Illinois gubernatorial election.   Sal2100 ( talk) 20:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)  reply

Again, you cite an essay, WP:10YT, not policy. I will say it again: despite the personal preferences of certain editors to eliminate articles on candidates who do not win political office, there is no policy-based reason to delete this article. It very obviously passes WP:GNG, which is the " generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow." If you don't like GNG, you should start a discussion elsewhere about it. WP:ROUTINE does not apply since, as has been stated, a person is not an event.-- User:Namiba 21:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Even if an article passes WP:GNG, WP:NOT is still and always a relevant rule. Non-notable former candidates clearly fail WP:NOT unless they are notable beyond their campaign or are especially notable, and have in hundreds of previous deletion discussions. We can easily include some information about him on the pages of the elections he tried to win. SportingFlyer T· C 23:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Ditto SportingFlyer's comments. I would add that WP:NOPAGE applies here as well. A good portion of the article is original research. If pared down to what can be verified by RS ciations (per my WP:BEFORE search), it would essentially be a stub. Given that there appears to little-to-no RS coverage of him outside of the two campaigns, per SportingFlyer, that info can easily included in the relevant campaign articles within the parameters of WP:DUE. No practical need for a standalone article. Sal2100 ( talk) 15:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete completely failed candidate who only received WP:ROUTINE coverage any candidate would have received, and for a minor party. Failed candidates do not have any sort of de facto notability and since almost all candidates receive a base level of media coverage, need to show more than just coverage of their campaigns to be eligible for an article - otherwise we would be absolutely overrun with failed candidates. SportingFlyer T· C 20:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    As an aside, we don't have to lose the information entirely - his positions can be adequately covered on the pages of the elections that he ran in. SportingFlyer T· C 20:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 20:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in elections they lost — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if either (a) they can properly demonstrate that they already had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have secured their inclusion in Wikipedia anyway, or (b) they can demonstrate a reason why their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than everybody else's candidacies. This demonstrates neither of those things, however.
    As well, since every candidate in every election always gets campaign coverage during the election, such coverage is not the stuff of a permanent WP:GNG pass in and of itself — if the existence of run of the mill campaign coverage were all it took to exempt a candidate from WP:NPOL on the grounds of having passed WP:GNG instead, then every candidate would always get that exemption and NPOL itself would become completely meaningless and unenforceable. So campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough, if the person doesn't also have GNG-worthy coverage in other contexts besides the losing election campaigns themselves. Bearcat ( talk) 16:44, 4 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! 19:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

List of figures in nationalism

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

Semi-procedural nomination. A recent attempt to nominate this with the rationale Absolutely unclear arbitrary list of politicians (mainly dictators) and philosophers. Neither the understanding of the term nationalism is explained, nor the criteria according to which the people are selected. In theory, almost any 19th-century politician could be listed here. was misfiled.

I do not see any way to "clean up" this list through editing. Everything from Abraham Lincoln to the Viet Cong is listed. But even after obvious cruft is removed, the only selection criteria appears to be "a politician from a nation", which is too vague to be meaningful.

The hundreds of Category:Nationalists subcategories cover a similar topic in a more approachable way; the page was spun out from Nationalism many years ago. I don't see a unilateral blank-and-redirect to either as being reasonable, but would not be opposed to consensus doing such a redirect. Walt Yoder ( talk) 20:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Walt Yoder ( talk) 20:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as an arbitrary collection of names rather than a valid list. Mccapra ( talk) 21:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Arbitrary and unclear list of names without any precise or meaningful selection criteria, as noted above. Mooonswimmer 01:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The history of this article shows how it grew [10] out of an old version of nationalism [11] in 2005, in a good-faith split. The intent was surely not to end up where it is now, but given the way it grew, I think the history would not be helpful in making this usable list. So, delete without prejudice toward a new article under this or a similar title being created in a better form. — siro χ o 06:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per vague scope. Clarityfiend ( talk) 12:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete without prejudice as per Siroxo. As it is, the article is not useful and has over-broad and utterly subjective criteria. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 19:03, 9 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 Ovaltine#History. Liz Read! Talk! 19:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

PDQ Chocolate

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

One paragraph article with only 3 sources, does not pass WP:GNG, also failed PROD PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 19:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete can't find sources other than in recipe books. — Karnataka talk 20:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Harmless stub with adequate references already in article. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Source Assessment Table proves otherwise.:
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Gone But Not Forgotten Groceries Yes Pass No No Evidence of Reliability(User Generated) No 40% of the page mentions the subject(131 out of 325 words) ✘ No
In the 70's Yes Pass No No(User Generated) No One very short paragraph ✘ No
Ancestry Newspapers Yes Pass ~ Official Newspaper With Paid Subscription No Can't Access Without Paying ✘ 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}}.
  • PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 22:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the Ovaltine article, nothing notable about this otherwise. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Ovaltine It was a popular product at the time (it did share the name of a popular game show of the time), but was de facto replaced by Ovaltine's 'rich chocolate' version over time based on brand recognition. Nate • ( chatter) 00:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge is the right ATD for now. Undoubtedly this would pass GNG given enough crawling through dead tree papers, but it's monotonous work sifting through advertisements to find the few actual reviews of the product, so I'll hope we one day have better tools for that. — siro χ o 06:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Merge Given only electronic sources for an item that disappeared more than twenty years before the Internet, notability has been shown. I agree with siro, above, that paper research would yield dividends, but since the article is so short, I see no problem with a merger, and it would not unduly distort the Ovaltine article. -- Bejnar ( talk) 14:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (selectively and without prejudice) into Ovaltine#History. We should merge mostly the sources. Whether notable or not, the text is too short for a SPINOFF. gidonb ( talk) 21:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into Ovaltine per above. - Indefensible ( talk) 05:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge given that PDQ Chocolate was a product line manufactured by Ovaltine, merging the PDQ Chocolate page into the Ovaltine main page would be a good decision. Emma so Bergst222 ( talk) 19:15, 9 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! 19:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Raghbir Singh Pathania

Raghbir Singh Pathania (  | talk | history | 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 four five sources that are used here do not satisfy WP: THREE, none of them contain in-depth stuff about the subject. In fact most of the website and sources used here are unreliable, appears like blog or dubious quality websites.The article certainly fails WP:GNG. Also, the case of WP:1EVENT applies here. Admantine123 ( talk) 19:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and India. Admantine123 ( talk) 19:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Karnataka talk 20:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: WP:THREE is neither a policy or guideline, and has no criteria to satisfy; it is a helpful essay regarding sourcing, but isn't meant to be cited in a deletion rationale. Additionally, the nomination very confidently says In fact most of the website and sources used here are unreliable, appears like blog or dubious quality websites; did the nominator even look at the sources in the article before making this bold statement? Only one appears to be wholly unreliable: the Geni(dot)com source. The others are a news article by a military historian; a source from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which provides basic biographical info; the brownpundits.com blog, which while initially seeming unreliable, seems like a subject-matter expert WP:SPS, as it is written by the aforementioned milhistorian and a published mil writer; the fifth source seems to be a joint project by the United Service Institution and the Ministry of External Affairs ( [12]), and is staffed by multiple historians ( [13]); and the last is an article in the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses's periodical. Can the nominator clarify what is wrong with these sources? Curbon7 ( talk) 21:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    For the record, I also am also not completely satisfied with the sources at the moment, I merely contested the notion that they were all unreliable. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Not only does Curbon7 make found arguments against the claims for the sources being unreliable but the arguments for "1 event" are questionable at best. The sources clearly provide a more clear and in-depth biography. You also have to take into context the criteria for what determines "notability" for a military biography as many are usually known for a specific action. For example, Luigi Cadorna is mostly known for his controversial role in the Battles of the Isonzo but his article is relatively short for a military Marshal. Should his article be deleted because of that? Most Medal of Honor recipients are primarily known for just a singular notable action in a conflict that was deemed admirable enough to receive the award. Should all of their standalone articles be deleted too regardless of the quantity of outside information? Even then, the only unreliable source cited in the article (Geni), I've opted to omit and replace it with a book published by the Indus Publishing Company with even more information about his family, tracing itself to nobility which gives even more significance. I could also make the argument of notability doesn't make particularly make much sense either given the wide variety of secondary sources covering Singh Pathania but I think I've made my point. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 02:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, given the above comments on sourcing, the subject appears to meet WP:BASIC — siro χ o 07:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Not thrilled about the sourcing: the article from The Friday Times is long, but the notice of I am immensely grateful to Vasu Pathania for having shared with me information, anecdotes and pictures related to his late father undermines the independence at least a bit. The Brown Pundits texts looks to be a near-copy of the article from The Friday Times, and is written by the same author. The indiaww1.in website is a single paragraph of 55 words. The text from idsa.in seems to be passing mention of a single sentence. The Princely and Noble Families of the Former Indian Empire: Himachal Pradesh is the same. Commonwealth War Graves Commission is a barebones database entry. All told, the only entries here that areeven broadly useful appear to be The Friday Times and Brown Pundits, and they look a bit too similar to make me comfortable. One more good independent source would likely push me to a keep, but right now it looks rather borderline. - Ljleppan ( talk) 09:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Ljleppan: I'm not sure if the newest source I've gathered will change your vote to a keep but I did find a book that mentions Singh Pathania's significance within the 2nd Jammu and Kashmir Rifles at least two times in a book dedicated to the history of the Regiment. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 02:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ SuperSkaterDude45: the way you say mentions doesn't exactly put me at ease, are these just relatively passing mentions of a sentence or two (as they appear to be based on the limited Google Books preview), or are we talking about substantive content of, say, at least a few paragraphs about him specifically? If this is the best sourcing there is, this is beginning to feel more and more like it should be merged and redirected to e.g. Battle of Jassin. Do you know if the subject has an entry in whatever is the local equivalent of Dictionary of National Biography? I'll also note that saying things like his family, tracing itself to nobility which gives even more significance is not helpful; notability is not inherited.
    @ A. B.: just making sure you noticed Curbon7's latter comment where they say they are only contesting the (un)reliability, not the (non)significance? Ljleppan ( talk) 06:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Ljleppan: Now that I've read the entire book, I can comfortably conclude that the entire section of the book is devoted towards the regiment's participation during World War I and Raghubir is mentioned more times including an entire paragraph about his participation and the legacy that impacted his family that the Google Books preview doesn't show. I've added more specific page-citations as well as fixed the current ones as the preview had the incorrect page numbers upon reading the actual book in its full contents. I should also re-iterate that that Pathania has significance given the numerous amount of secondary sources used. Finally, I should conclude that WP:NOTINHERITED has the following in its contents: This does not mean that such associations are never claims of significance (significance is a lower standard than notability, used for sections A7, A9, and A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion); it simply means that the association does not by itself make the subject notable. which is to per say, if I were to claim that Pathania was notable purely on the merits that he was a descendant of a noble family and not as a complimentary indicator for his significance as a miltary commander. SuperSkaterDude45 ( talk) 05:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Himachal Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:24, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the great analysis and work by Curbon7 and SuperSkaterDude45.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:45, 6 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 Mostly Autumn. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Iain Jennings

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

This article has been proposed for deletion before but that was contested. It was also redirected and then that too was undone. The article currently has the same issues that the redirecter had concerns with. Kometalgreat ( talk) 19:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. The first AfD closed as no consensus due to lack of participation. — C.Fred ( talk) 19:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This article has been around for almost fifteen years, and the only sources are the bands' web pages? Clear fail of WP:GNG, and there's nothing in the article, other than being a member of two notable bands, to suggest that he is individually notable. — C.Fred ( talk) 19:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Mostly Autumn because he has been with them for the longest time period. Somewhere in that band's article, it can be stated that he was also a member of Breathing Space and has done some solo albums. Those solo albums have received no reliable notice so he should not get his own article. Also, if there is a history of reverting redirects, make this one stick with some sort of protection. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( TALK| CONTRIBS) 12:59, 4 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! 19:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hung Cao

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

Of the 21 sources, 9 are either Hung Cao's social media accounts, election results pages, or an editorial he wrote. Most of the other sources are routine coverage that would be expected for any candidate in a competitive district. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:GNG. I would support making this page a redirect to either 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in Virginia#District 10 or 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 19:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply


  • Delete Does not seem notable.
  • Delete No credible claim of notability. We go through this on every election cycle. First Law of Politics: "get elected". (The party nomination does not count.) Will reconsider the article then. Military service is not notable enough for an article. Candidate has attracted coverage in the Washington Post and if it had been at the time he salvaged JFK Jr's plane instead of when he became a candidate I would have considered it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. ser! ( chat to me - see my edits) 23:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, but this is offering no evidence that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of an unsuccessful political candidacy. Bearcat ( talk) 16:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete. Good Morning, I'm sorry but I'll have to disagree with some of the comments noted above. If there's been any issue with citations I apologies and have updated the page this morning. With regard to lack of notability, I have to disagree due to his past military and philanthropic career. If there was nothing notable aside from the fact that he won one primary, I would completely agree with your assessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:47B7:9000:876:2302:ABD9:2668 ( talk) 13:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
That's not how this works. If you want to claim that he had preexisting notability before becoming a candidate, then you have to use coverage that he received in those "notable" contexts before becoming a candidate — that is, if you want to claim that he had notability as a naval officer 10 or 15 or 20 years ago, then you have to source his work as a naval officer to 10 or 15 or 20 year old coverage that was given to him while he was a naval officer, and sourcing it to brief mentions of his having been a naval officer as background information in current coverage of an unelected candidacy for political office doesn't cut it. If you want to claim that he's notable for something that happened in 2005, for example, then the source for it has to be dated 2005 — if it wasn't newsworthy enough in 2005 that he would already have gotten an article for it in 2005, then it doesn't become a notability claim in 2023 just because it happens to get mentioned as career background in coverage of something else. Bearcat ( talk) 16:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Normally I would support a redirect to the election page as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates running for federal/national office (see WP:POLOUTCOMES). However, when there are multiple plausible redirect targets, I do feel it is better for the reader using the search function to see the possible results, rather than force the reader into seeing one article over the other. -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per User:Hawkeye7. Wikipedia has articles about political incumbents, not challengers. Get elected and then get your article. —  AjaxSmack  22:19, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete Then wouldn't the same argument apply for DANIEL GADE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:47B7:9000:8567:D68C:16E2:D5C5 ( talk) 03:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    That's not how this works. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But for what it is worth, Daniel Gade has multiple references to his activities before his 2020 candidacy. (In fact, his article was created three years before his candidacy.) This does not mean that his article would survive a deletion discussion, but it is still better placed to do so than this one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:54, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Captain Hung Cao, USN (Retired), is a true American hero. He has served honorably in many war zones and has received numerous commendations for his leadership and heroism. As such many of his deployments and assignments were secret in nature and could not be disclosed. These facts do hinder his ability of notoriety. However, Captain Cao is an American success story and deserves to be known by young and old alike. Captain Cao is a highly educated and experienced leader. He is an asset to his country and the state of VA. He is notable in the tradition of former, military trained, US leaders and should NOT be removed from Wiki.

AGM

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 18:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Amirreza Rafiei

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

This article was already nominated for deletion back in October, and the result was delete. Since then, there has not been any progression in the notability or the career of the player in question. Comprehensive failure of WP:GNG, significant coverage cannot be found and is certainly not presented on the article here. Since this player is still young and could become notable in the future, I am unsure if WP:SALT is appropriate, but I leave it to the community to discuss. It must be noted that the same user created both the first deleted article and this one. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 18:42, 3 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! 18:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Julia Benneckenstein

Julia Benneckenstein (  | talk | history | 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 made at least three appearances for the Liechtenstein women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found one piece here, which is paywalled but appears to cover her move to the U.S. to play college soccer. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:32, 3 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. with the comment that the references in this article need to be reviewed and improved. Liz Read! Talk! 18:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

2020 Brazilian Superbike Championship

2020 Brazilian Superbike Championship (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article had been proposed for speedy deletion by criterion A7. I contested the nomination due to the existence of a good number of references. However, further analyzing the article, I realized that many references do not match the content of the article.

As an example of these references, [14] and [15], they are about Copa Truck, nothing about Superbike. ✍A.WagnerC ( talk) 15:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The same with 2019 Brazilian Superbike Championship, 2021 Brazilian Superbike Championship and 2022 Brazilian Superbike Championship. Sources about Copa Truck. ✍A.WagnerC ( talk) 15:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment The application for A7 was because the event was an annual summary of the results of a redlinked event, hence inherently not notable. That event has since been shown to be notable in the Portuguese Wikipedia, as evidenced by the discussion taking place on the creator's talk page when you plonked the template of this nomination there. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 15:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm not sure notability in a different wiki necessarily translates (hah) to notability here. Actualcpscm ( talk) 18:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport and Brazil. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Question why would a national-level sporting competition in a world-wide structure of a sport be unimportant? -- Mikeblas ( talk) 21:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 15:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - A7 is not the best argument against this one and it's the top competition for that category of racing in its country. KatoKungLee ( talk) 14:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per my comments above. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 15:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • The first set of sources are from Copa Truck and don't even mention Superbike, in the Results session, some refs are from the 2019 and 2018 season. I think the article has notability however, but the references are a mess. Cainamarques ( talk) 21:00, 8 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! 18:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Yaritza Adames

Yaritza Adames (  | talk | history | 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 made at least two appearances for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:24, 3 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! 18:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Anajaira Claudio

Anajaira Claudio (  | talk | history | 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 made at least three appearances for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG ( talk) 18:20, 3 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 Scientist.com (company). Liz Read! Talk! 18:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

COMPLi

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

Sourced largely from PR-ish items with flowery language, not seeing notability for software. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

What kind of notability or sources do you wish to see? Slongo1234 ( talk) 20:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. There are no coverage of this firm from mainstream reliable sources. A lot of current sources are from Scientist.com (the parent company) directly and cannot be properly credited. This leaves us with few sources that I am not fully sure credit whether they are sponsored. The subject lacks general notability for sure. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 09:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    !Voting weak delete because it does seem that the subject has won the CPhl award, though I am not sure about the notability of the award itself. Need one more set of eyes on this. TheLonelyPather ( talk) 09:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti *Let's talk!* 19:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Scientist.com (company): The industry award was to Scientist.com for this initiative, and the Pharma Tech Outlook item discusses it in that context too. COMPLi is covered in the article on Scientist.com so a redirect seems a reasonable WP:ATD. AllyD ( talk) 07:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:19, 3 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 American College of Greece. Liz Read! Talk! 18:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Deree College

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

This is an article that should (at best) be merged with American College of Greece if not just speedily deleted. The so called Deree College is in fact the same organization as the American College of Greece. There's no reason to have both articles as Deree's activities make up nearly the entirety of American College of Greece's academic activity and income so there's very little differentiation between the two in practice. They have the same address, are the same legal entity, headed by the same person etc.

Also the article is probably blatant promotion as it's not based on neutral sources, uses ad-like language and makes many unsourced claims. Gnkgr ( talk) 18:18, 3 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 Mississippi Power. Liz Read! Talk! 18:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Eaton Electric Generating Plant

Eaton Electric Generating Plant (  | talk | history | 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. First source is a listing, second source is dead, this source lacks WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Technology, United States of America, and Mississippi. UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Delete Non-notable (and long gone) structure; I'm not showing that it was a registered historic site. No sourcing found for the plant. Oaktree b ( talk) 18:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Petal, Mississippi. There are newspaper articles on the subject and it seems to have been a regionally important structure. However, it does not meet WP:GNG.-- User:Namiba 19:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm traveling and don't have time to look for refs for now. However, from reading the article, it sounds historically significant and probably notable. If you redirect instead of keeping, I strongly recommend redirecting to Mississippi Power, not Petal, Mississippi. It's more significant in the power industry's history than Petal's.
    -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 20:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Merger with Mississippi Power does sound reasonable since this is the parent company which built and operated this plant, and was named after Barney Eaton, Mississippi Power's first president. However, small portion of content of Eaton Electric Generating Plant would need to be rewritten since it is accidentally misrepresenting the sources. For example, WDAM source says that plant was "closed in 2012 because it had become less efficient than other plants" while article cites "declining efficiency". The original statement compares the efficiency to that of other plants, while the latter compares the efficiencies of the same plant across time. It is likely, the Eaton plant maintained the same efficiency while the other plants advanced due to incremental upgrades or entirely new designs. Anton.bersh ( talk) 07:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Different Merge/Redirect targets are brought up here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:39, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:18, 3 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! 18:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

David Waters (actor)

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

Doesn't contain a single source Whitemancanjump23 ( talk) 07:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 00:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak keep based on the newspaper sources given above. Likely many more in paper sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 01:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Add sources I will not take a stance on deleting the article, since it might have notability. However, none is established from the total lack of sources therein. PickleG13 ( talk)
  • Weak keepweak delete(see discussion below). Firstly, I've added the sources referred to by duffbeerforme, to the extent that's WP:HEY. However, a thorough search of Trove and Australia & New Zealand Newsstream ProQuest revealed nothing of substance beyond those 2 short articles (both fairly superficial articles relating to Waters as the host of Matchmaker). Maybe the awards help sway the balance to meet WP:ACTOR but it seems pretty skinny to me. If he was truly notable, surely Google, Trove and Newsstream would have revealed more RSs... Cabrils ( talk) 02:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Cabrils, What's wrong with biographical cuttings held by the National Library of Australia? What makes them useless? duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Duffbeerforme Nothing. But in this instance the Biographical cuttings on David Waters, actor, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals appear to be the 2 articles I added to the page, both from the Australian Women's Weekly. It's a bit unclear from that link you included to Trove but on my independent search of trove it did pull more results but most were the briefest of mentions of Waters in TV guides on what was on TV for a particular day, certainly nothing approaching substantial coverage/RS (as defined). But perhaps I'm missing something and there are other materials? If they are not available online (and so not easily verifiable) it does get a bit difficult to use them as the (sole) basis of an argument to retain the page, doesn't it? As I voted, I'm a weak delete so certainly open to persuasion (my predilection is generally to include). Cabrils ( talk) 04:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Cabrils, where are you getting that the contents is just those two articles? If from my !vote then you've missunderstood me. Those two were found elsewhere. My guess is it contains others, such as the articles that were published when he went naked on stage in Queensland and the speculation over the potential actions of the very conservative police force. (Can you see [18]?) duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Duffbeerforme Indeed I may have misunderstood you. But for the absence of doubt, the link you included above, for what you describe as sourced from the National Library of Australia, takes one to a page in Trove titled "Biographical cuttings on David Waters, actor, containing one or more cuttings from newspapers or journals" but includes no detail whatsoever, and may, on its own description, be a reference to only a single article. The only articles I could otherwise find in Trove were those I described above, being 2 of (arguable) substance. Your "guess" may be right, but in the absence of verifiable reliable sources it would seem challenging to argue that the page in fact satisfies WP:GNG, WP:ACTOR etc. I have just undertaken a search on Newsbank (news database) and found no articles. So for clarity, I have undertaken searches via Google, Trove, Newsstream and Newsbank, and found 2 articles (both fairly superficial articles relating to Waters as the host of Matchmaker, both published in the Australian Women's Weekly) which I have added to the page.
Yes I can see the Facebook link to the 1975 Queensland production of EQUUS. I can't make out the source of those photos of newspaper articles but I would have thought 1975 would be covered by Trove? They might be great, but in that Facebook form I'm not persuaded they meet RS.
For these reasons I maintain my vote of weak delete, but again, I would be delighted to change it if we can find RS establishing Waters' notability. Cabrils ( talk) 05:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Troves coverage is actually pretty limited. LOTS of articles exist that have not yet been added. 1975 seems to be in a bit of a black hole, not in trove which has better coverage of earlier decades and too early for the likes of newsbank. Trove does not appear to have any qld papers from then. Eg David Rowbotham reviewed Red, White and Boogie (a play with Wathers) in the Courier Mail in 27 Nov 1974 but that can't be found online.
Dismissing online sources for not being easily verifiable flies in the face of wp:v. Source(s) have been shown to exist. You can't just dismiss them without a better reason than just I can't see them. Anyone in Canberra can go into the library and request to see them [19]. duffbeerforme ( talk) 05:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
All good points, I agree. I take issue though when you say that I am "Dismissing online sources for not being easily verifiable". I expressly said that the problem with those sources is that "Your "guess" may be right, but in the absence of verifiable reliable sources it would seem challenging to argue that the page in fact satisfies WP:GNG, WP:ACTOR etc" and "it does get a bit difficult to use them as the (sole) basis of an argument to retain the page, doesn't it?". I'm not disputing that anyone in Canberra (or any State Library) would be able to verify those sources. I simply make the point that it is challenging to use such sources, that have not been verified by anyone in this discussion, as the sole basis to keep the page. Cabrils ( talk) 07:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
I have added two further refs, including a ref for his Critic's Choice Award. WWGB ( talk) 06:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Good work. That's sufficient for me to justify meeting GNG, ACTOR-- I've changed my vote to weak keep. Cabrils ( talk) 07:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The fact is that the majority of this article is unsourced. In the theater area the first part of the first sentence is the only info that comes from a source. The entirety of the restaurant section is unsourced. The first clause of the first sentence under "television" is the only sourced part. Given that it would be within policy to remove all but the sourced material from this article it would consist of maybe two sentences and the listing of one award. In addition, the notability of the award is not clear. It is in the Elizabethan Trust News, and that publication states: "Critic's Choice, 1975, is not an attempt to sum up the year, but rather to give an impression of the variety of theatre offering." So it's local to that publication and doesn't seem to actually be an award. Lamona ( talk) 01:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Given I nominated the page on the basis of not having a single source and there's now some sources, do I still stand by the nomination?? He was on TV and did theatre but there's really not many sources about him. Still, there are some and for people who pre-date the internet, they shouldn't be discriminated against. If the page was rewritten in it's entirely based on the available sources, I would be open to it staying ie all the fluff and bit about the restaurant was scrubbed. But in the current form it's tainted and I'm still standing by my nomination to delete. Whitemancanjump23 ( talk) 06:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
Yes, I do. "Some sources" is not enough - there have to be sources that support all of the content, and the sources need to be significant. Also, the person needs to meet the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. All we have from sources is that he hosted a TV show for children and appeared in a TV commercial; that he renovated his home; and there is one photo to show that he appeared on stage as Charlie Brown. The rest is out of thin air. Lamona ( talk) 15:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think this discussion needs more time and editors to get input about sources that have been added. Sources don't have to be online to be used but having them inaccessible makes evaluating them difficult.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I agree with the reasoning that the majority of the article is without sources and therefore, despite having a good acting career, he did not have a notable one. If more reason is needed, look at the page for the show he hosted, Match Mates which is also what the first clipping is about. It apparently lasted just one year. The reason there is only two clippings is that it never took off. And the show is not interesting enough to get editors to bother bringing it up to even start quality. MtBotany ( talk) 01:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Lack of sources is not a reason to justify deletion: it is a reason to find more and add them to the page, a far more constructive approach. And again, for the record, lack of sources from the internet is not a reason to delete-- offline sources are just as relevant (sometimes more so) as online sources. Having said that, the fundamental issue is does the page currently, or have the potential to, meet WP:GNG, WP:CREATIVE etc? I think this is a finely balanced example and could go either way, but I am still inclined to retain my !vote of weak keep. Cabrils ( talk) 02:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    What we're doing looking for online sources in this AfD is grasping for reasons not to delete this article. It is giving one last benefit of the doubt to see if this is an encyclopedic subject.
    Yes, a wonderful offline source could exist. However, it also may not. In the absence of evidence we should not assume that the silence means that there is an invisible unicorn holding its breath in the room.
    I do not see this as a finely balanced issue. I think it is a clear delete. MtBotany ( talk) 03:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    I fundamentally agree with you, although I think you have misunderstood my point. I am not suggesting the page should be kept because of some as-yet-undiscovered "unicorn". I simply make the point that offline sources are valid.
    You are certainly entitled to your view and are encouraged to express it. For brevity I won't repeat here my reasons for why I believe this is finely balanced. Cabrils ( talk) 00:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note that the !votes by Lamona and MtBotany are commenting on the current state of the article instead of on the notability of the subject and both fail to address the contents of the book of cuttings held by the National Library of Australia. duffbeerforme ( talk) 04:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time. The discussion centers way too much on the sources currently present in the article, instead of wether other sources showing notability perhaps exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 17:06, 3 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. If this article subject does become notable in the future, let me know and I'll restore the page to Draft space. Liz Read! Talk! 18:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Stefan Roots

Stefan Roots (  | talk | history | 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:NPOLITICIAN – local government officials are not automatically notable. There are plenty of local sources present in the article, but there's nothing to indicate that this person is notable beyond being part of a city council for a city with a population of ~33,000 people. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pennsylvania. Hey man im josh ( talk) 16:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Not enough here to justify a standalone article for this person. Agree with nom in whole User:Let'srun 18:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: WP:N states that a subject should have significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Roots has received significant coverage from reliable, independent sources such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, WHYY.org, www.Fox29.com and www.delcotimes.com. WP:N does not say that coverage must be "non-local".

Roots is more than "just part of a city council". He won the Democratic primary for the election of the next Mayor of Chester, Pennsylvania by defeating a two term incumbent. Since Chester is a Democratic stronghold and there is no Republican candidate for mayor, he will become the next mayor of Chester in November. WP:NPOLITICIAN states that "This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them."

Chester is more than just "a city with a population of ~33,000". It is the oldest city in Pennsylvania, contains multiple locations on the U.S. National Register of Historical Places, hosts a Major League Soccer franchise and has a significant impact on all of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The mayor of Chester is a major local political figure. See also: List of mayors of Chester, Pennsylvania

If the result of the AfD is to delete, I would submit this page again after the November election because Roots would then meet notability requirements as a major local political figure as mayor. Dwkaminski ( talk) 19:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

You're using a WP:CRYSTALBALL and assuming that he's going to be the next mayor, but mayors are not inherently notable either. Hey man im josh ( talk) 11:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm not assuming he will win. The reliable, independent sources referenced are stating that he is likely to win. Dwkaminski ( talk) 16:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation in the future if he accrues a stronger notability claim. City councillors are not "inherently" notable just for being city councillors at all, and Chester is not large enough that even its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability just for being mayors either — and since all local politicians can always show local coverage in their local media, such run of the mill coverage is not in and of itself enough to secure passage of WP:GNG in the absence of some nationalizing coverage demonstrating that his notability is wider than just purely local to one small city.
    For either mayors or city councillors, the notability test is not passed just by using the bare minimum of sourcing necessary to verify that he exists — it's passed by writing a substantial article about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his time in office had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. So the time to start an article about a municipal politician is neither "five minutes after he's declared the winner of the mayoral election" nor "as soon as he wins the primary several months before the election" — it's "after he's already been in office long enough to have a record for us to write about". Bearcat ( talk) 16:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete In general, for local officials, we want to see sourcing that shows "more than they exist." We want to be able to write about their accomplishments in office, and the impact they had on their community and their community's development. This standard is true for mayors and elected executives, and especially true for members of the legislative branch of city/county/special district governance. While not required, it is helpful to use non-local sources to show this impact (as we are a global project). -- Enos733 ( talk) 16:26, 4 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 Criticism of democracy. Liz Read! Talk! 15:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Anti-democratic thought

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

This article has been almost entirely unsourced since 2013. The only sections with any sources are those on Robert Michels and Adolf Hitler. I had a look at the cited sources, but none of them refer to any kind of unified "anti-democratic thought". Hyland 1995 discusses the "logical limits of democracy", Blamires 2006 references Michels' "critique of democracy", Fest 1973 mentions Hitler dismissing internal party democracy. Connection between these two figures, or between them and the other figures mentioned in the article, aren't clear at all. Much less is there a clear "anti-democratic thought" that binds them together.

As the scope of this article appears to be entirely synthetic, I'm proposing this article for deletion, or to at least be redirected to Criticism of democracy. Relevant sections of this article could be merged into those on Michels and Hitler. Grnrchst ( talk) 15:30, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Appears to be WP:SYNTHy and largely unsourced. Doesn't really contribute anything that criticism of democracy doesn't already. — Czello ( music) 15:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep without prejudice to TNT or BLAR. Searching on Google Scholar, there's several results for the term ( [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]) that focus on the sociology and history of anti-democratic movements, rather than their specific criticisms of democracy; I think this is a distinct, notable topic which could be covered here, or perhaps even better at Anti-democratic movements or Anti-democracy. That having been said, as-written the article is a poorly-sourced CFORK of Criticism of democracy and could justifiably be redirected there. signed, Rosguill talk 15:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • TNT, per User:Rosguill. -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 15:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • TNT this is going to need a complete rewrite; good job finding sources as above, but starting from zero here is what's needed. Oaktree b ( talk) 16:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - I'm willing to be persuaded that this could be a notable topic, per Rosguill; however, anyone writing such an article would be hindered not helped by the present content, so I think WP:TNT applies here. Most of the sections are unsourced, and none of the sources in the article support combining these thinkers in this way, so it violates WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH. I'd be fine with a redirect to criticism of democracy. WJ94 ( talk) 16:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Oaktree. No prejudice against recreation but creating a coherent article on this topic will not be easy. Mccapra ( talk) 21:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep it could be rewritten if users do not think the article is adequate in its current version Gooduserdude ( talk) 21:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to Criticism of democracy, an article with its own problems. There is nothing to salvage in the current version of the article under discussion, which is something between an essay and a list of "not democracy" examples with no central coherence. For the idea of opposition to democracy, there should be a section on this in the main article ( Democracy#Criticism would be better scoped as "Opposition" than "Criticism"), and for the time being there exists a dedicated article on the topic that would be a fine redirect target. I see no content to merge, so best to procede with the "TNT" deletion followed by a redirect for the title as a search term. czar 11:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, basically following Rosguill and Czar. A redirect sounds like a good idea but TNT it first. -- asilvering ( talk) 13:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to criticism of democracy. The content is not usable in its current format, but I don't see any pressing need to hide the history. Eluchil404 ( talk) 14:09, 10 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. Despite the sources, consensus determined that they were not sufficient to establish notability. ✗ plicit 14:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Miss University of Florida

Miss University of Florida (  | talk | history | 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 beauty pageant with a complete lack of secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun ( talk) 13:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Let'srun ( talk) 13:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh ( talk) 14:14, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Uses bare url links, no primary references from the school nor secondary references to justify this. Conyo14 ( talk) 16:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There are some more sources out there, however, I believe that the pageant does not meet notability. Grahaml35 ( talk) 12:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Grahaml35 - I realize on paper it seems odd, but there's over 1,900 mentions of the contest on newspapers.com alone - See here. There's clearly notability. KatoKungLee ( talk) 01:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - There's over 1,900 mentions just in Florida alone from newspapers.com about this competition See here. It's clear this is a notable competition. Here's 17 examples, and these are just up to 1965 or so and don't count papers not uploaded to newspapers.com, any radio, television or local magazine mentions - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13], 14, 15, 16], 17 KatoKungLee ( talk) 01:04, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    With all due respect, all of the sources you cited either aren't significant coverage (ie, only a paragraph) or aren't about the pageant itself. WP:ITEXISTS is not a sufficient reason to keep any article. Let'srun ( talk) 01:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Let'srun - That's not true at all. Please check again. This is why I did the ANI. Keep in mind, that's just up to 1961 with 60 years to go. KatoKungLee ( talk) 01:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    In addition, sources #4 and #5 appear to be the same article. Let'srun ( talk) 01:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    As I just wrote on your talk page WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is not a great argument to make (I realize that it is an essay but I think it bears mentioning) Let'srun ( talk) 01:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    Let'srun - Here's what WP:LOTSOFSOURCES says - Whilst showing the subject is mentioned in a number of sources, not all sources are reliable and may only be trivial mentions. Notability requires the presence of significant treatment of a subject in reliable independent sources, not just the mere presence of the searched-for term. The specific articles I linked to are from newspapers and do not fit that criteria. KatoKungLee ( talk) 17:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    There's a reason why some editors present the sources through the "Source Assess Table Generator" - you have yet to present why those sources are sufficient. Notability requires sources that don't mention the item in passing. Any in-depth source about the origin of the pageant, the people who started it, etc would most likely give solid weight to keeping the article. – The Grid ( talk) 16:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The Grid - So far, I haven't actually seen any interest in looking into any of these and have been dealing with 20 other beauty pageant nominations from the same user(with some of these already being deleted before I could look into them, which sadly makes this a race as much of a collaborative research event). First I was told they didn't exist. Then I was told all of the 1,900 search results were just WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, so none of them count. Then out of the 17 articles I posted, the only comment I got was that 4 and 5 were the same, though it wasn't mentioned that the paper published the same article twice for some reason. I don't take those as serious, interested responses.
    Here's how I would sum up each one: 1 - describes what's going on at the pageant. About a paragraph's worth of details plus the headline.
    2 - It talks about some of the things that the winner of that years contest had to do.
    3 - About 2-3 paragraphs worth of what will happen at the contest.
    4 - An entire article dedicated to the contest.
    5 - The newspaper posted a copy of #4 on a different page. We can speculate as to why.
    6 - This talks about how Karolyn Bagg won it, which I think is important.
    7 - About 2 paragraphs on the upcoming contest.
    8 - A quick paragraph about the winner of the 1961 contest.
    9 - A couple of paragraphs about Avie Marie Jenkings winning the competition.
    10 - A couple of paragraphs and a headline about the upcoming competition
    11 - A couple of paragraphs on the result of the 1962 competition.
    12 - A full page article on the competition. This was called a passing mention.
    13 - 3-4 paragraphs on the upcoming contest.
    14 - 2-3 paragraphs on the result of the 1965 competition.
    15 - 2 paragraphs as part of coverage on Spring Frolics week, which this comes during.
    16 - Headline and about a paragraph as coverage of Spring Frolics.
    17 - About 2 paragraphs about it, talking about the things that will happen and last years results.
    - I stopped in the 1960's as I believe there's enough coverage. I think its also important to note that we have 0 access to any news or radio broadcasts from this time and are missing lots of other papers which likely also talked about the pageant. Since it's nearly 70 years old, I think we have reason to assume it got covered and that more sources exist. KatoKungLee ( talk) 20:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Let me re-ask this without thinking about the sources. If you could provide three significant sources that provide in-depth explanation, what would they be? There's an essay about three sources that gives a better idea of looking for general notability. The importance is the quality and not the quantity. – The Grid ( talk) 15:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ The Grid - I'm not wasting any more time on it. I was told no sources existed. I posted sources. I haven't seen much evidence than any of them were read. I was then told that I needed to post a preview about what each one was about. I did and again, it doesn't seem like anyone read them. Now I'm being asked to do another rendition of it. No. KatoKungLee ( talk) 14:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:49, 3 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. ✗ plicit 14:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Laureana Toledo

Laureana Toledo (  | talk | history | 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:NARTIST and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:18, 3 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. ✗ plicit 14:24, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Glanzing Parish Church

Glanzing Parish Church (  | talk | history | 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) 14:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

*Delete No indication of being notable. No coverage and no suitable redirect target. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep Talk 15:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Its been updated and passes WP:HEYMANN. scope_creep Talk 19:42, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

*Redirect to Neustift am Walde, which (now) includes a section on Glanzing - WP:ATD. A thorough search shows that there are sources for the church not yet in the article - for example, the Historisches Lexikon Wien and Bandion's Steinerne Zeugen des Glaubens. Die Heiligen Stätten der Stadt Wien (1989), pp. 399 f. - which probably would amount to SIGCOV. However,the history of the church makes better sense in the context of the history of the settlement, so for that reason I favour the redirect. Ingratis ( talk) 23:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - this building is a national listed monument - reference added. Together with the other additional sources, also added, this meets GNG. Ingratis ( talk) 14:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as additional reliable sources references have been added to the article that show that it is a national listed monument and passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 22:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as a scheduled historic monument per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it has been WP:HEYed - surprised the German article wasn't checked during tagging. SportingFlyer T· C 22:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: the sources added since the nomination establish notability per WP:GEOFEAT as a scheduled historic monument. InterstellarGamer12321 ( talk | contribs) 09:59, 10 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 14:22, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Grave Plott

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:57, 3 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 Alive (Ed Kowalczyk album). ✗ plicit 14:23, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Grace (Ed Kowalczyk song)

Grace (Ed Kowalczyk song) (  | talk | history | 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. NN song - fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Alive (Ed Kowalczyk album): found no additional material. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 16:25, 3 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 14:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Matthew Godfrey (actor)

Matthew Godfrey (actor) (  | talk | history | 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:NACTOR and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As always, the notability of an actor is not passed just by listing roles — having acting roles is literally the job description, so every actor who exists at all would get an instant notability freebie if listing roles were all it took. Rather, the notability test for an actor requires externally-validated evidence of the significance of at least some of their roles, such as notable award nominations and/or the reception of sufficient reliable source coverage about them and their performances to pass WP:GNG. But the only "reference" here is from a blog, not a reliable or GNG-worthy source, and there's not much other referencing to be found since virtually all of the roles listed were supporting or bit parts rather than leading roles. Bearcat ( talk) 16:58, 4 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! 05:48, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Dmitry Koshelev

Dmitry Koshelev (  | talk | history | 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:NACTOR. Nevertheless, I am willing to withdraw the nomination if any enhancements are made to the article per the guidelines outlined in WP:HEY. RPSkokie ( talk) 13:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

    • Hello, leave the article for a week, I'll try to find authoritative sources to keep the article in the public domain. In addition, I will supplement the work with other sources showing the authority of the person. The actor starred in famous TV series and cinema in Russia (you can see in Filmography) -- Sashigay ( talk) 10:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply
      • So, hello! On the article: added a variety of authoritative sources, links to international collaborations, as well as links to movies and music videos of famous artists in which the persona starred and participated. Look and evaluate the authenticity of the links and notes, and I have added the sections "Filmography", as well as added a new section "Music videos", in which I gave an example of projects that were associated with the person! -- Sashigay ( talk) 11:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 13:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - I went through filmography. When I clicked on all the references and machine-translated the pages, he wasn't listed in the list of main actors, so he must have had very small parts. Also, the Russian Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 18:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - highly likely undisclosed paid-for sockfarm spam. I've blocked the creator. MER-C 14:23, 5 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. Editors are split over whether available coverage is sufficient, with some editors on either side equivocating with weak-ish !votes. I'm opting against relisting, as there's been a fair amount of discussion and the number of weak !votes suggests that this article's sourcing status is on the borderline of notability and likely to generate continued disagreement rather than a clear consensus. signed, Rosguill talk 13:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Kēlen

AfDs for this article:
Kēlen (  | talk | history | 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 honestly cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this conlang beyond a passing mention. All sources currently in the article are links to a fansite, which does not indicate notability. Both previous deletion nominations in 2007 closed as delete. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 13:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 13:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination, I can't find any reliable or independent sources either. -- AlexandraAVX ( talk) 18:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Book sources with significant coverage: [26], [27], [28]. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The first ref looks like the coverage is only maybe a few sentences and a table, the dictionary of made up languages (which is not published by an academic publisher) maybe only devotes four pages to it, which due to the large font size is suprisingly little text. It provides no analysis, and maybe 75% is a word lists and sample text, along with a statement from the author's website why she decided to create the language. I can't access Biting the Wax Tadpole so I can't provide an analysis, but you've provided no evidence that it's significant coverage. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 10:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The first ref has the bottom half of page 87 and the top half of page 88 consisting of multiple paragraphs, which is pretty obviously sigcov for me. For the second source, I'm not sure what you mean by "analysis"; but for me "Characteristics of the Language" is very much adequate. We've never had a requirement for RS to be from an academic publisher; the dictionary is from Simon & Schuster, which is certainly a reliable publisher. The third source is a bit shorter, and while it may not be enough on its own it definitely complements and adds to the other two. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete I'm finding a few passing mentions that do not add up to much at all [29] [30], and the book sources above appear to be of the same type. Importantly, none of these add any analysis - they are just brief summaries of the primary material (which makes up practically all sourcing currently in the article). If you have to scrape together dribs and drabs like this to make up a technical notability pass, then that indicates that we really should not have an article at all. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 13:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I will note this badly failing proposal on a similar topic: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on requiring non-plot coverage to demonstrate book notability. While not directly applicable here, it shows a general consensus that a source should not be discounted from being considered significant coverage just because much of it is a summary of primary material. And regardless, my Hildegard of Bingen source is very much an analysis; the author is comparing Kēlen to Irina Rempt's Ilaini. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep-ish Based on sources from King of Hearts and Elmidae, I think the article is only barely just notable. I'm willing to remove citations and cited material from the fansite from the article and give it a makeover to be based on these sources if it gets through this AfD.   Frzzl   talk;  contribs  21:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I mostly edit Wiktionary now, and I admit I've started confusing the policies of the two projects where they differ. I may be mistaken here. But so far as I know, there's nothing wrong with using primary sources (terjermar.net is the author's own website), it's just that primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. So we don't need to scour the Internet looking for replacements for every link that we currently have to terjemar.net, we just need to show that the language has been treated in detail by other writers. Again my apologies if I'm misunderstanding the policy, but this is what I remember it to be. I don't have a vote of my own just yet as I would need to do more research before I can say anything confidently. — Soap — 13:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think you misunderstood anything, Soap. On the contrary, you pretty much hit the spot. Primary sources are fine as long as they are interpreted properly. If an author writes that his/her language is spoken by 500 people, that proves nothing but the very claim itself, but when it comes to linguistic details, the website of the author is definitely the most (if not the only) reliable source. In other words, primary sources are elementary when it comes to verifiability, but they don't help in establishing notability. Secondary and tertiary sources, on the other hand, are needed to establish notability, as well as for analysis and other meta stuff. So there's definitely no need to replace references about linguistic details. — IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 21:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I have to agree with King of Hearts and Frzzl here. Sources are not abundant, but I believe they are sufficient. The Dictionary of Made Up Languages dedicates three whole pages to it (pp. 100–102) in normal lettering (I own the book). Sarah Higley discusses it in some detail, and although David Peterson in his The Art of Language Invention mentions it several times and lists it among "the best languages ever created" (p. 15). In addition, a search on Google Scholar also turns up several results, and even if Kēlen isn't discussed there in much detail, its very presence in academic literature also amounts for something. So at worst, this is a borderline case, and in borderline cases, it becomes a matter of goodwill. — IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 20:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Addition: the article actually mentions another source as well, which unfortunately was hidden in the text, and since it is in Russian, it won't show up in Google searches. Anyway, this book by Shuvalova & Sidorova dedicates no less than 12 entire pages to an indepth discussion of Kēlen. I think that pretty much demonstrates notability, at least enough to tipple the balance in favour of preserving this article. — IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 21:43, 10 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 11:08, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Air Charter Service

AfDs for this article:
Air Charter Service (  | talk | history | 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 company, not properly sourced as passing WP:CORP. As always, companies are not "inherently" entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH on the quality and volume of their sourcing -- but this is referenced entirely to press releases and short blurbs in limited-circulation trade publications, and shows absolutely no evidence of substantive coverage in GNG-worthy media.
Note, for the record, that this article was raised as a WP:WAX argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Production Air Charter -- but, of course, the fact that this article is badly sourced doesn't mean that other article has to be kept, it means this article needs to be deleted. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the company from having to have better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 12:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Bearcat ( talk) 12:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comments:
    1. Limited-circulation trade publications are sufficient as long as they are reliable sources (independence, editorial oversight, etc.) per WP:RS.
    2. That said, like even big media, trade publications also publish recycled press releases which are not reliable.
      • The article's current refs are recycled press releases.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 14:59, 27 July 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 13:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - it seems like a fairly sizeable company and there might be more sources somewhere, but everything I'm seeing is very shallow and consists mostly of quotes from executives. (As A. B. wrote, probably recycled press releases.) LittlePuppers ( talk) 05:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete brochure advertising articles. No reedeming features. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:ORGIND and specifically WP:SIRS. scope_creep Talk 10:08, 7 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. With only a small portion of the merge supporters indicating that it was "merge or bust", coupled with the fact that there is a slight numerical lead for Keep with roughly comparable policy reasoning, Keep is the logical AfD result - but quite possibly with a merge discussion in the future. Nosebagbear ( talk) 20:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Wenja language

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

While this article is very nice, I just don't see how it's a separately notable topic from the video game itself, and feels like something that should be on fandom. The article is primarily sourced to self-published blogs by the creators of the conlang, which should not form the basis of an article per WP:PRIMARY. I do not think there are reliable sources that could be uses as substitutes for them. There was some news coverage, but it's all from the release window of the game in early 2016, failing WP:SUSTAINED. I think some material from the article is worthy of merging into the development section of the main game article, which is well below the size-limit. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 12:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Pinging participants of previous discussion about the Wenja language at WPVG: @ OceanHok:, @ Soetermans:, @ ProtoDrake:, @ Sergecross73: @ Zxcvbnm:, @ Axem Titanium:, @ David Fuchs:, @ DecafPotato:. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 13:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I can't add much more than what was discussed here but I still think it is a good idea to keep the article. For convenience, I will copy here my final reply to that thread:
"Regarding sources, the article as is includes 5 independent sources that focus on the language itself ( Gaming Respawn, Player One, University of Kentucky, Gamespot, Supertext). Zxcvbnm ( talk · contribs) was kind enough to find another ( Game Informer). Jean-Frédéric ( talk · contribs) just left this other source from Sciences et Avenir on the talk page.
This book, published by McFarland & Company, discusses Wenja to a great extent within the context of storytelling: e.g. "Because the languages are functional, and not set up nonsensically or with nonsense words, the player’s sense of interactivity increases as the game unfolds", "Background conversations may not always be translated, contributing to the player’s sense of being immersed [...]. The result is not so dissimilar from learning a language by listening to its practical application, such as the systems taught using Rosetta Stone or Duolingo". This paper published in Revista de historiografía ( Charles III University) discusses the creation and characteristics of Wenja to some lenght (p. 334 ff). This book also mentions Wenja within the wider discussion of conlangs, but I haven't had access to the full contents. This paper talks about Wenja within a discussion about the creation of several different dialects for artistic languages. Ultimately, I think this other book (discussed above) may also be relevant source because, while authored by the creators, it has been published by Oxford University Press, an institution with high editorial standards, and is in no way a self-publication. We have articles for conlangs based mainly of a book publication by their creator (e.g. Asa'pili).
I think an issue that may be causing a small misunderstanding here is that this article is mainly intended to be about a constructed language (that is also a part of a game). Some people in this community may not be familiar with how an article on a conlang looks like, so there are several comments about how the article is "bloated" with information on grammar or pronunciation. However, WikiProject Constructed languages does recommend that samples are included wherever possible, and indeed, in its structure this article is not dissimilar to many other articles about conlangs on Wikipedia (e.g. Brithenig, Quenya, Lingua Franca Nova, Naʼvi language, Interslavic, etc.) A significant part of this exposition is based on primary sources, but is the only part of the article that does so. This is how an article about a language is expected to be structured, regardless of whether it is a natlang or not."
Qoan ( talk) 13:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Edit: Pinging contributors to the article: @ Mika1h:, @ Jean-Frédéric:, @ Wprlh:, @ Rhain:, @ User-duck:.
To give a critique of the sources here, neither Gaming Respawn nor Player One are listed at WP:VGRS, Supertext is the blog of a commerical copywriting company, and the University of Kentucky is the university at which the creator of the conlang is employed. Universities love to promote the work their researchers do, so it cannot be considered independent. The other sources are usable, but are all from the same year the game released. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
You have conveniently forgotten to mention the University of Murcia, the University of Silesia Press, the translation journal Perspectives, and the fact that the book by the creators was published by Oxford University Press and not by the University of Kentucky (and therefore is not promotion by the creator's university, but independently published by a different institution). All these were published 2017-2022, so at least a year after release. Qoan ( talk) 10:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • My opinion on this remains unchanged. This should be Merged into the main article. It looks more like a well-sourced Wikia article than anything on Wikipedia, especially as nothing further has been done with the Primal setting. Put it like this; if I tried taking this to GAN, it'd be shot down double-quick for over half its sources being first-party. -- ProtoDrake ( talk) 13:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge selectively to the respective game, or make sure the wholesale article is available on a Far Cry fan wikia that almost certainly exists out there somewhere. It's more appropriate there, where there's looser requirements for subjects having their own article. Sergecross73 msg me 13:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge I've had a look at the sources discussed and added, and I end up thinking that either it doesn't meet SIGCOV or the result is still too dominated by primary sources to be acceptable as a standalone article. The beefiest sources available are primary. That leaves things like two paragraphs in a much larger book or press from the prerelease hype that don't demonstrate significant sustained coverage. The defense above is basically an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and I think it mostly makes it obvious that most other conlang articles are similarly pretty bad (wikiproject consensus doesn't overrule wider guidelines or policy, and that suggests the wiki project's guidelines themselves are at odds with our policies on due weight and coverage.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The nominator's rationale is incorrect, as GNG has been proven. Additionally, as there is an entire WikiProject for constructed languages, needless to say it is not unusual for an article on a fictional language to exist. Any argument for merge appears to be based on WP:WEDONTNEEDIT or similar. Simply thinking an article's content is not necessary is not in itself a reason to delete or merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Seeing the secondary sources, this seems to be a notable topic, with NOT only "some news coverage ... from the release window of the game", but also scholarly works. I don't know how a constructed language would be best presented, but the comparison with Quenya etc. at first glance seems to support that the way is in accordance with established standards. Even if this were not the case, though, that would be a reason for trimming/editing, not deletion, with the development section being the real-world content one would expect for a Wikipedia article on a topic of fiction. Daranios ( talk) 15:05, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Quenya and Na'vi are both used in multiple works which are some of the most significant works of fiction of all time, not a relatively minor single video game. The scholarly coverage is essentially passing, aside from a primary account from the creators of the conlang themselves. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I think it would be a massive stretch to call Avatar "the most significant work of fiction ever made". It sold a lot of tickets, yeah, but Avatar is mostly a pastiche of other sci-fi ideas. The Far Cry series is also massively selling and certainly isn't relatively minor. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 15:21, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Avatar is literally the highest grossing film ever made (with its sequel being the third highest), obviously in cultural influence it's dwarfed by the Lord of the Rings, but it far dwarfs the influence of this Far Cry video game. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I feel like that's us putting in our relative judgments - and kind of a reverse WP:NOTINHERITED - rather than looking to Wikipedia's basic qualifier: Do secondary sources talk about it? @ Hemiauchenia: I don't get what you meant exactly with The scholarly coverage is essentially passing? Would you mind explaining more? Daranios ( talk) 18:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. I think the primary offense for this article is not one of notability, but of DUE weight. While there are a small handful of sources that qualify as significant, independent coverage, the article runs positively wild with primary sources that far outstrips the appropriate level of detail for the topic. Yes, there appear to be a few academic papers about the conlang, but that does not give editors free license to wax philosophic academic about fricatives and glottals. Importantly, from the second section (Dialects) all the way through the end of the article, there appear to be a grand total of zero non-primary sources. They're all direct interviews or self-published sources by the author of the conlang. If this isn't torturing the definition of undue weight, I don't know what is. Axem Titanium ( talk) 15:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can you point out where specifically in WP:UNDUE it blocks a source from being used for more than a certain % of the article's non-reception-related content? This seems like a personal stance more than a policy per se. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 16:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Articles should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. Very close to zero non-primary sources talk about dialects and consonants and syntax, so if you exclude the REFBOMBing of Mr. Byrd's self-published sources, the amount of the article that should be devoted to that should be very close to zero. The number of consonants in the Wenja language is trivia just as the number of guns in Call of Duty is trivia. Axem Titanium ( talk) 16:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    This is more or less the crux of many of the merge comments above, not the ill-conceived assumption that its based on WEDONTNEEDIT. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I would lean to a Merge on the basis that the subject matter of the article, the nature of the language and its technical lexical aspects, are heavily reliant upon primary sources. The descriptive although mostly non-mainstream secondary coverage concerns the rationale and development of the language for the game itself, which seems to be something that could be adequately expressed in the development section of the game. I get the impression that compared to other constructed languages, such as Sindarin or Klingon, the secondary attention to the game is in the context of its use in the development of the primary work, and not an interest in its use or significance beyond it. This has led to a dearth of descriptive sources. No expert on this, so welcome alternative views, and will try to revisit the above positions from others. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 08:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. I think Qoan's argument about academic coverage is a compelling one against the claim that this is non-notable or that attention is not sustained. But I also think Axem's argument has strength. But what this article should cover and whether it's too reliant on primary sources strikes me as an editorial question. Perhaps the use of primary sources, and information about the language itself, should be cut back. But I think that depends on the extent to which it has been studied as a language rather than as a part of a game. If it is being seriously talked about by academics as a language, perhaps all this language talk is appropriate. (Show me the source, and I'll support keeping more strongly.) Josh Milburn ( talk) 11:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as an AfD outcome: GNG is met, sources are sufficient. Now, if there's going to be a merge discussion, I'm perfectly fine with that happening outside the compelled AfD process. Agree that a merger is a far better outcome than deletion, but I believe N has been met for standalone article. Jclemens ( talk) 18:56, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I'd argue that the sheer amount of analysis of the language demonstrated through the scholarly sources Qoan provided should easily prove this has significant enough merit to not justify a deletion nor merge. Adding this information to the parent article wouldn't be of benefit for two reasons: one, adding the language's analysis would bloat the parent article, potentially losing its scope, and two, merely writing a brief paragraph about the language in the parent article wouldn't be enough to convey the significance of the language that said scholarly sources actually discussed. So I believe this is a valid split for both notability and size purposes. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 19:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. As I understand it, even the nominator agrees that the subject of the article is notable, the information is verifiable and the text is well-written. The only probleem seems to be WP:UNDUE—or rather WP:BALANCE, since the former refers to minority viewpoints. And that is precisely why merging would be a bad idea: unless we'd kick out lots of valuable information, the article about the game would be heavily out of balance. Besides, Wenja is notable not only as an extension of the game, it is also a rare example of a professionally created AND fully developed constructed language, which definitely makes it notable as a part of WP:CL as well. — IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 11:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I don't agree it's notable. It's part of a single video game and will likely never be used again. It's the video game that is notable, not this minor aspect of its worldbuidling, and this is largely reflected in the sourcing. Why is the information about its phonology is "valuable", given that it is based entirely on the self-published notes of the author? Why is being "notable as a part of WP:CL" important? WP:CL is a completely dead wikiproject, and has been so for years, it has no value whatsoever. It's also not a new constructed language, but a derivative of PIE, which has been used in other projects, like the film Prometheus, so that's essentially irrelevant. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 11:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Being based on PIE does not at all disqualify Wenja from being a conlang, but simply makes it a typical example of an a posteriori language – just like hundreds of other conlangs like Esperanto, Interlingua, etc. I am not familiar with Prometheus, but based on what I read about it, the PIE used there is merely a matter of one pre-existing fragment and one undecyphered sentence, which makes the comparison moot.
The fact that Wenja owes its notability to a single computer game puts it in the same league as Klingon, Na'vi, Dothraki etc., all of them owing their notability to a single TV show. And doesn't the same thing go for all the thousands of biographies of fictional characters even more? Whether Wenja "will likely never be used again" is something only the future will show and surely not ours to decide.
As for the wikiproject, it doesn't really matter if it's dead or not, what I meant is that it is also a rare example of a professionally created AND fully developed constructed language, which definitely makes it notable as far as constructed languages are concerned. Personally, I am very interested in the latter, even though I don't give a fiddler's fart about games.
At last, a grammar description is always valuable in an article about a language, and the fact that most of it comes from a primary source does not preclude that. In fact, grammar descriptions of constructed languages are almost always based on a verified primary source. — IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 13:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. The article is far too reliant on primary sources, and what's there besides that, much of it is talking about it under the lens of Far Cry Primal. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 05:13, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge: I think a sub-article for the fictional language is kind of WP:UNDUE, as this is a very small part of a video game. I don't think discussing the fictional language is WP:GAMECRUFT, but such an in-depth discussion of its individual elements (e.g. dialects and phonology), are GAMECRUFT content. It doesn't help that Far Cry Primal itself is also a very inconsequential game and does not really has lasting impact. OceanHok ( talk) 16:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - As it stands most of the referencing in the article itself is to primary sources, but the academic sources cited above show that there is much more coverage out there. Also describing an overview of its linguistic features such as grammar and phonology as "cruft" is frankly just demonstrates that one doesn't know how language articles, constructed or otherwise, are typically laid out. Totalibe ( talk) 19:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't think it's cruft, but I do think that too much of the sources providing sigcov aren't doing so in a way that makes it independently notable from Primal. Ie, rather than being about the Wenja language, it's about Far Cry Primal. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 04:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The section of this article that is about Far Cry is solely about the language. There are also some book sources.
    Ultimately this is an article that needs improvement that people are confusing for non-notability. If the sources in the article now were all that existed, I'd have to agree it was non-notable, but there were more brought up in this AfD discussion and the problems are WP:SURMOUNTABLE with some effort at cleanup and improvement. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 06:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I mean, let's be real dawg, multiple experienced editors simply do not agree that it's a matter of improvement needed. It may be a strict standard, but it's true that something like Na'vi and Klingon are notable outside of the context of Star Trek. If Star Trek never got another series or movie or game or whatever, the Klingon dialect would still be culturally significant. You'd still get articles about it and people studying it and writing about it in significant detail. Going over this article, discussion of the Wenja language/culture is incredibly limited after 2017, and even 2017 only has a few articles that I saw. Looking at works published after 2017, you have "Language Invention in Linguistics Pedagogy", which appears to cover the creation of the Wenja language but not the cultural impact or significance. Doesn't seem to comment on it from what I can see from snippets when I search Wenja. Next, we have " Dubbing multilingual movies into Persian: a case of invented languages as the third language", which I cannot judge how valuable it is, since the snippet is somewhat limited. Finally, "Langues construites et mondes imaginaires: du vice secret aux productions hollywoodiennes", as has been pointed out, is a primary source. Besides these, my search of reliable sources only brought up two other instances where it was mentioned, and both were in passing. What my ultimate point is is that it seems like the Wenja language's relevance lived and died by Far Cry Primal, whereas 'Na'vi' and 'Klingon' aren't coupled to the popularity of Star Trek or Avatar. Virtually all of the sources talking about Wenja were written during the launch/hype/discussion cycle surrounding Primal, and ended once that cycle was over. That should not be overlooked. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 12:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm just going to point out that all the cited sources on the Naʼvi language are themselves only from 2009-2011. Totalibe ( talk) 18:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    There are sources dating later than that, such as this journal article from 2015, which has recieved a number of citations. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    There is also this [31] which appears to discuss the nature of the Na'vi language, published in 2016. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 00:55, 10 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 13:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

David Schittenhelm

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

Professional career boils down to 48 appearances for Heidenheim, then a 3. Liga club, in 2010 and 2011. Best I could find is this article in Süddeutsche Zeitung, in which a brief biography of his was used as an example of a young (borderline) professional player who defies common stereotypes about that group to some extent. Not bad, but also not enough on its own. Dr. Duh  🩺 ( talk) 12:22, 3 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 06:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Raziel (Legacy of Kain)

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

Unlike Kain, this article's reception is mostly build up with trivia articles/sources like listicles and some passing mentions from game reviews. Cannot find any WP:SIGCOV or sources that mianly talked about Raziel per WP:BEFORE somehow. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • So far I maintain my stance on it, though the Kill Screen article recently discovered is an excellent source on him. Just not sure the others are of a similar caliber. I also did a magazine search since this series is from that era, but found solely trivial mentions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 13:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Zxcvbnm the article has been updated and rewritten. Would you be willing to change your vote? Pokelego999 ( talk) 00:50, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Unfortunately, no. I'm not trying to be petty, but article authors can draw a lot, and I mean a lot of content out of passing mentions - enough to fill an entire reception section handily - without the sources necessarily indicating the character is notable. So, I sympathize with the rewrite, but WP:OVERCOME applies. The rewritten article uses very long quotes, and an ultra-long block quote, to pad out what could be slimmed down to a few choice sentences. If the unnecessary and possibly copyright infringing quotations are removed or paraphrased, it would be half its length or less. As before, the Kill Screen article's the only one in particular I'd refer to as SIGCOV beyond a doubt. There should definitely be a place to discuss Raziel's character on Wikipedia, but it feels like it would be the main article of the series, game or a character list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 02:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'm observing a bit of spuriousness to these AfD nominations bordering on zero effort towards improvement recently. Raziel is not a trickier subject to track down some analysis of than Kain. I was able to grab and integrate four or five thinkpieces discussing this character in under an hour with minimal effort and no use of archives or literature - these address the main complaint. Per WP:BEFORE it would probably make sense to invest some time and integrate sources you find as citations, rather than rush articles to review or AfD. LoK Wiki ( talk) 01:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Only the KillScreen source is valuable, others are trivial. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 15:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    A one-liner that the sources are "trivial" isn't sufficiently clear to me. The Kill Screen article contains less direct commentary on the character than other sources and leans more towards structural comparison. Gamasutra was a much better source for me, so is NME. Can you explain in depth how you're defining value and what you're looking for to reduce confusion? LoK Wiki ( talk) 15:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    My view on things is that Kill Screen speaks about Raziel's metaphorical significance, while Gamasutra/Game Developer is mostly describing the stylistic writing of the intro, and is not actually about Kain or Raziel besides the intro's quoted words and the explanations of those words. NME has a few choice statements on Raziel that can be used, but is mostly a game retrospective praising the game's gameplay and story, in general, not specifically about Raziel. Of course, I encourage people to make their own opinions and not just say that because I said it, I must be right. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 19:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    While I would follow and agree with your perspective as an assessment of article quality, I don't understand where this is codified anywhere as a good or relevant rationale for deletion. Under WP:SIGCOV "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." What you're saying here is that regardless of the depth and extent of attention the sources pay to the character, the character does need to be the central topic of the sources to constitute SIGCOV or else it is invalid - but that seems to be an excessively high or idiosyncratic standard which doesn't exist in policy, and just breeds confusion when at the same time voting to keep something like Sagat held together by only four or five extremely weak list articles, not even a single source of this calibre. LoK Wiki ( talk) 21:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    From GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly". I feel some of them are indirect in how they mention the topic. Also, to be fair, I did not vote to keep Sagat based on its current article state, WP:NEXIST is important to keep in mind. Many people nominate articles because they are bad right now while not taking into account future possibility. However, my keep was "weak" and I have no major issues with redirecting if that is the prevailing consensus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    The requirement of addressing the topic directly is expressly balanced with the caveat that the subject need not be the central focus of the sources at all. While Raziel is not the central subject of either source, he clearly is addressed directly and in detail throughout both. They both contain significant coverage of the character. From the illustrative bad example at WP:SIGCOV, "address the topic directly" has more to do with nixing sources limited to offhand mention of the subject than it has to do with examining the fine nuances of how the character discussion in the article happens to arise. There are other sources which can easily be inserted (including literature). But using a rationale as far into the weeds as this to rule out character study material is idiosyncratic. I'm just looking to nail down a coherent notion of the policies and goalposts to be satisfied, because I've seen a fair share of chaotic subjectivity and non policies at play in these recent AfDs. LoK Wiki ( talk) 23:27, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep While I do feel it needs some paraphrasing on those quotes LoK Wiki added, and some cleaning on the lists so they focus on what's being said and a few of the more questionable ones get deep sixed (the Sterling "characters we'd go gay for" one is particularly...yeah) I feel what's there meets notability now and don't agree with the assertion that it's trivial.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 15:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep after massive, substantive expansion of the section being challenged, with even more material sitting in reserve, I see no reasonable way that deletion on the basis given here would be justified. LoK Wiki ( talk) 04:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for working on it. I guess I own you apology after you were forced to work on the article, but that happens everytime during the afd process. I think it passes WP:GNG now, but I can't withdraw since someone voted merge. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 11:03, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per the work done by LoK Wiki. Pokelego999 ( talk) 00:51, 10 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 13:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Christoph Korn

Christoph Korn (  | talk | history | 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 artist. all sources provided are routine coverage, no independent sigcov provided to establish notability. Jdcooper ( talk) 11:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Jdcooper ( talk) 11:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Question - Can an article on a "web artist" use embedded links?-- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 18:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Good question. I'm guessing you mean these in the Web Art section:
    I don't think it's a good idea for digital/new media artists to have embedded URL links, as it opens the door for all artists' articles (and musicians, etc.) to have embedded URL links.
    Embedded links are prone to link rot, and also could contain malware (not sure if WP's server filters out malware or not, tho.) I think we should stick to standard citations, and material on Commons for visuals and other media files. Netherzone ( talk) 21:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:34, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete WP:BEFORE does not turn up significant coverage. Some of references in the article show that the audio art exists, but is not significant coverage. The article do not state why the artist is notable and I can't find anything on the web. The sentence "In the last few years, he has increasingly used the strategy of deleting and withdrawing." doesn't mean anything. This article seems like a resume rather than an encyclopedic article. Also I deleted the embedded links-- WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 00:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Film, Music, and Visual arts. Netherzone ( talk) 02:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Sometimes artists who are multidisciplinary like Korn, slip through the cracks of history because they don't neatly fit into art historians and critics genre-boxes. This may be the case with Korn, who does a lot of different things from audio to video to film to new media, to writing. However after going thru all the existing sources in the article all I found were primary sources like links to online music sources, press releases, calendar listings, recording announcements, etc. but nothing in the way of SIGCOV. He won a few non-notable awards, the most prestigious is an Honorable Mention from Ars Electronica, but that is not enough for WP:ANYBIO. An online search did not prove fruitful. At this time he fails WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST, and WP:MUSICBIO. I found a professor named Christoph Korn, and got excited because they have a high citation index and thought he might meed NACADEMIC, but alas, that is another Christoph Korn, a neuroscientist. I think the article should be deleted unless someone finds substantial independent coverage in reliable sources; I remain open-minded and am willing to change my !vote if substantial sources are found. Netherzone ( talk) 16:21, 6 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. While there's some back and forth on what the ideal representation of this information may be (whether as a category, split into other lists, or left to another Wikimedia project), editors agree that in the absence of existing alternatives, this meets WP:LISTN and can stand as-is. signed, Rosguill talk 13:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

List of suicides

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

“Dynamic” list. Any useful purpose is better served by a category. Last nomination was in 2008. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 11:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete According to PetScan, there are over 27,000 articles in Category:Suicides and its subcategories. Most are biographies, though I am not certain how many of those are about people who committed suicide. This page, at time of writing, is nearly 500 KB of wikitext, with 1,170 entries. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 12:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
The length of the page is how it came to my attention, in fact. Always worth checking out Special:LongPages for anomalies (e.g. Tartan). RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 13:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The rules are quite clear, you shouldn't try to delete a list because you prefer a category. The list has information about every entry so is far more useful than a category is. All entries have their own Wikipedia article. 1365 references in the article also. The length of an article is not a valid reason to delete it. If it ever got too long, then you can split it off into separate list as is already done in Category:Suicides. Dream Focus 13:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I’m concerned that the difficulty of ever making a complete list (of all notable people with their own articles who committed suicide) limits the usefulness of the list. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 08:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    No article has to be complete. An article doesn't have to be WP:useful, although 144,103 people have viewed this article in the past 90 days. Dream Focus 01:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Yes this list is unwieldy, but at best it can be split up. Ajf773 ( talk) 20:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I am honestly not sure how you could split a list like this and keep it (or its splits) manageable. There are over three-quarters of a million suicides a year. There are tens of thousands of people who die by their own hands and (arguably) meet WP:N every year. What possible value would such a list serve? You might as well have an article list all left-handed people or all notable people who have took A-levels. I have to pick Delete on this one. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:01, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    There are over three-quarters of a million suicides a year. How many of these have Wikipedia articles? There are tens of thousands of people who die by their own hands and (arguably) meet WP:N every year. A person only notable for committing suicide, and nothing else, would normally not qualify for an article per WP:BLP1E, so they would never make it to this list. StonyBrook babble 14:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Globally, suicide accounts for somewhere between 1% and 2% of all deaths. It is a very common cause of death, more common than homicide (sensu lato, including warfare and capital punishment). If the proportion among people who have Wikipedia articles is even remotely similar, this is bound to be an extremely lengthy list if it is ever going to even approach being exhaustive. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I would assume split into alphabetical sub-articles, ordered by surname. Ajf773 ( talk) 10:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I think a potential breakup by date would be more helpful than by name. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 07:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I’m not against splitting up (perhaps by date) but as it stands the article is as much an incomplete monstrosity as the Ryugyong Hotel. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 07:46, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Just a procedural keep as I originated the article and don't like things I originated to "go to waste". But I will also like to add that there should be a limit to the number of nominations for deletion articles can get because otherwise, 15 years from now, we will be talking about the same topic. Antonio The Best sucka of all them Martin ( dimelooooo!) 18:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Per WP:SPLITLIST and WP:PRESERVE, there are ways to address the length of an article, if needed—which I'm not even sure this one does. StonyBrook babble 05:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    • I daresay the potential length of this article, should it ever come close to including all the notable people who qualify, absolutely needs to be addressed. See my comment above. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Hence my Delete !vote. I just don't see a way that such an article is maintainable or ever would be. It is a literally endless list. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 18:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
        What StonyBrook said, Keep.
        @ Last1in There are a many lists on wikipedia that are more "literally endless", just one example: Lists of African Americans. Neozoen ( talk) 21:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
        Why do we need these things? Dronebogus ( talk) 23:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
        Neozoen, if those other endless lists appear in an AfD, I'll !vote the same way. They add nothing to the encyclopaedia but noise; are impossible to maintain; and are inherently controversial (which people to include and why). In fact, the very nature of suicide will make this a magnet for contention since whether a particular death was self-induced is often uncertain or disputed. In answer to Dronebogus: We don't. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:39, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete more as a protest vote because we don’t need huge lists of extremely common things with thousands and thousands and thousands of entries that provide no real information, probably aren’t actually used all that much for navigation, are poorly maintained, and largely just exist to crash slower computers. Dronebogus ( talk) 23:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
[32] 144,103 page views of this article in the last 90 days. Some people do use it. My computer is slow and old and cheap and it never crashes. I got it nine and half years ago for 300 dollars and no problems with this article. Internet is faster these days, servers more powerful, so I doubt anyone had a problem. Dream Focus 01:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep, this page has obvious utility. With nearly fifty-thousand page-views per month there can be no doubt that it is used by a great number of people (not that there is any kind of policy-based requirement that a page be frequently viewed in order to be kept, anyway). The page is not too long; Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia, and as such any claim that an article can be 'too long' is questionable to begin with. If the page were 'too long' for some technical reason, which does not appear to be the case here based off what some other editors have said, then the page should be split, not deleted. Anyone arguing that this list can never be complete, and should therefore be deleted, should be made aware of the fact that Wikipedia creates and maintains many dynamic lists which, by definition, can never be complete. This is not a reason for deletion, either. Joe ( talk) 11:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and split when necessary. I agree that a list with thousands of entries would be too big. Thankfully, it's easy to split. A good example of what Wikidata could probably do better than Wikipedia, but for the time being it's certainly going to meet WP:NLIST, contains more information than a category, doesn't duplicate it, and seems like there are many ways to split it up. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Would it be possible for you the “and split” part? RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 11:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as WP:VALUABLE at least for quick keyword searches of suicide cases. Suitskvarts ( talk) 09:56, 11 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) Actualcpscm ( talk) 11:09, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Bode Osi

Bode Osi (  | talk | history | 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:BEFORE shows no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Even Google Maps shows nothing more than rural countryside. No evidence of notability whatsoever - only weather database entries. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 10:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

It has an area of 328 km2 and a population of 76,593 according to the 2006 census.
As for Google Maps, look 6.5 km west of it's "Bode Osi" location to a town it identifies as Bode Olla. There are multiple stores, etc. there whose names start with "Bode Osi". I'm pretty sure that's our town.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Works for me. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 16:04, 3 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. North America 1000 10:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Toon In with Me episodes

List of Toon In with Me episodes (  | talk | history | 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 list with in excess of 600 entries is a pointless list. It fails WP:GNG. This may have a place in Schotts Miscellany, but not Wikipedia. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep per other commenters. This is a notable topic. Pokelego999 ( talk) 18:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per others. DCEdwards1966 ( talk) 06:56, 7 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 06:36, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Protect trans kids

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

While the article is well written, I don't see any sourcing that ties the article together; the article seems to mostly be a grab bag of incidents that use the phrase, because there doesn't seem to be much SIGCOV about the phrase itself. Open to a merge/redirect, but not sure where it should point. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think the page should be deleted, theres important information on the page which shouldn't be tossed aside.
  • Everything on this page matters, let's not delete something so important. SpiderGwen Kizna ( talk) 08:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (and I guess disclaimer as article's creator). Believe the phrase passes GNG. Coverage of the phrase intrinsically focuses on the contexts it is being used in (whether for activism or in media). I looked through the Slogans category and some slogans there also seem to follow the "grab bag" format (like Live, Laugh, Love or Seek truth from facts, or even Shit happens). I think this is probably fine for all of them honestly but idk maybe the goal is to get to a structure seen on something like Eat the rich or Hands up, don't shoot; those two articles have Origin and Criticism sections that I think flesh it out a bit. I think that is doable, so I don't think deletion or redirecting are good moves here.
    also comment I do figure the tying together in the page is the usage of the phrase done in a pro-trans rights sentiment. There are some sources that I still need to incorporate into the article found in the Refideas template on the talk page. I also found these I'll need to sift through: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. I'm not saying all of those are suitable or appropriate for inclusion, I just have to literally go through them to see since I just found them off an additional search of the phrase rn. Uses of the phrase in activism is a "tying together" thing imo, but it's also used in merchandising ( Human Rights Campaign has merch with the phrase fwiw, though I don't think I'd be able to source that since it'd be from that organization's own website). Soulbust ( talk) 09:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Soulbust: " Live, Laugh, Love" does make an effort to talk about the phrase's history, its attribution, and its temporal home. The current coverage of "Protect trans kids", on the other hand, doesn't seem to be able to pin down anything about the phrase as a phrase. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. Perhaps more importantly, inclusion of the article on the social media phenomenon does not seem to be SYNTH on Wikipedia's part. Beyond the sources Soulbust is working through, here's a book that directly covers the phenomenon [33]. There are other, shorter references to it in academic journals you can find on Google Scholar as well. — siro χ o 10:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    That book falls afoul of the use–mention distinction: it doesn't actually tell you anything about the phrase as a phrase other than that it was used in activism on behalf of transgender children (which is what this whole article was, and it is just kind of self-evident from the title). It does tell you about the activism on behalf of transgender children that this hashtag represents, but that's fundamentally a different article. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Perhaps, consider the "subject" of the article to be Trans rights and the slogans "Protect trans kids" and #ProtectTransKids, and then consider MOS:AT as a valid reason for not titling the article as such, and choosing a more natural, sufficiently precise, concise title instead.
    This subject is in line with our policies and guidelines. We don't need the entirety of the conclusions our articles make to come from one single source as long we don't make unverifiable conclusions. Given that the phrasing would meet WP:GNG, the crux is ensuring we're not performing OR/SYNTH. We do have multiple sources of verification that this phrase exists as something more than a disparate collection of individual unrelated utterances. This means, we can write an article about it. We can use information from a variety of sources to provide coverage of individual instances including activism tied to the phrase, the meaning of the phrase, etc, as long as we don't derive unverifiable conclusions from them and give DUE weight Perhaps further attribution of secondary source authors and publications would help reduce the risk of SYNTH, I can take a pass on the article for that at some point, but it's certainly possible to include this article in Wikipedia given our guidelines and policies.
    — siro χ o 21:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or redirect. Although this phrase appears in sources, and has been used as a tagline for trans advocates, e.g. [34], I'm not seeing much dedicated coverage in sources concentrating on the phrase itself. That suggests to me it's not an established encyclopedic phrase meeting GNG in its own right, but rather an English phrase that is used in other contexts.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 15:44, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    If the phrase is being used as a rallying call for trans advocacy/activism, then of course the coverage of the phrase will end up also getting into the actual activism (and becoming mostly about that, since it's the tangible, real-world impact of the phrase) like in this source. With that source, this one, and this one, it shows a pattern that this particular phrase is being singled out/used over and over by both activists and public figures and thus shows that this particular phrase has a considerably more notable and meaningful presence in the related activism/advocacy. So bc of that, imo this article has place on Wikipedia as a stand-alone, and straight up deletion would be rather counter to the spirit of the whole goal of this project. I'll continue to work on this article in the meantime. Soulbust ( talk) 21:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - How did this even get nommed? For a month-old article, it's well written and superbly sourced, with RS cites in five of the last seven years. It was promoted for DYK! It is precisely the type of article that strengthens and broadens the encyclopaedia. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 12:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but possibly consider retitling and expanding scope. There is definitely a decent amount of coverage of the specific phrase "Protect Trans Kids", especially in respect to the Twitter hashtag "#ProtectTransKids" ( [35], [36]), but also in both positive and negative political response to the movement ( [37], [38]). That said, I agree with the nominator that it's not entirely clear from coverage that this phrase is unique from other similar slogans like "Trans kids deserve..." ( [39]), "Support LGBTQ+ youth" ( [40]), etc. I wonder if it would be appropriate to direct similar slogans to this article and title it something like "Transgender youth slogans" (ok, that's a bad title, someone smarter than me can write a better one) or even leave it at the existing title as a common name but make it clear the article encompasses similar slogans focused on trans youth. I'm curious what Soulbust thinks of that idea in particular; I'm not sure if it makes sense, but I think I get the intent of this nom. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 17:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    I do appreciate the intent to bring up a possible middle ground here. Though I'll be honest, I think the "Protect trans kids" slogan is much more prevalent (particularly in sourcing I've come across) and notable than the other two mentioned, so I don't really think I'd be all for a retitling. I also think an expanded scope (or what I'm thinking that expanded scope would entail) would probably work well over on the Transgender youth and Healthcare and the LGBT community articles.
    That being said, I have no problem referencing these related/similar slogans (I already did include a mention of similar "Protect trans [x]" slogans in the "Use in activism" section). Maybe a "similar phrases" section can be made to include that "Trans kids deserve..." one, though I think the "Support LGBTQ+ youth" would make it beyond the tight scope of being specifically trans-related, which I think is an important thing to get across in this article (as the "Protect trans kids" slogan came into popular usage in response to government revocations of protections for trans youth). I would say, especially with the sourcing I added recently, that the "Protect trans kids" slogans is quite unique and distinct from the other related slogans, especially or at least in terms of the volume of its usage and specific referencing by both those who agree with its sentiment of supporting trans kids and those who have a more negative sociopolitical response to the trans rights movement. Soulbust ( talk) 20:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well reasoned. I'm sticking with strong keep, and love the idea of keeping the current title and adding a 'Similar Phrases' section. It would add depth to the article and avoid hashing out NN on each phrase that is added to lexicon over time. Great idea. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 22:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Soulbust That meshes with my thoughts here; I think a similar phrase section would work and even just an expansion of the Related phrases... sentence/paragraph is probably sufficient. A glance at Google Trends bears out your claim that "Protect Trans Kids" is more prevalent than semantically similar phrases like "Protect Trans Youth" ( [41]), so I agree it makes sense as the article title.
    FYI @ Last1in your keep rationale is not based in policy; you might want to expand it with your thoughts on the independent notability of this phrase instead of criticizing the nomination, which strikes me as reasonable (even though I disagree with it). Also IMHO "strong" keep and delete aren't particularly useful phrases for closers, but that's just a personal preference. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 00:37, 12 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! 08:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Scott Woodward (marketing executive)

Scott Woodward (marketing executive) (  | talk | history | 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 best source in this article is Associated Press: "Scott Woodward’s career has been nothing short of remarkable. With his keen eye for creativity and unwavering work ethic, Woodward has risen to the top of the advertising industry through a journey that has been both interesting and unexpected." we are told - the issue being that this is 'contributed content' - a press release. Little else exists here to demonstrate notability - passing mentions, (gushy) interviews and pieces about the brands the subject has worked with. The edit history would also appear to involve the subject's own work on this page. All in all, we clearly fail WP:GNG once we get beyond the window dressing. Even the picture was uploaded by an SPA... Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Advertising, and United States of America. Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Athletic director out in Washington State that has coverage, nothing for this fellow. Flowery language and PR stuff used for sourcing. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • KeepThe contributions of this subject seem noteworthy. It also aligns with WP:GNG. Additionally, the account that was editing the page was tagged for vandalism and all their edits have been reverted. Please check history of the page to confirm. The sources can be improved with research but the page should be kept. Editingforgk ( talk) 10:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete WP:NOTLINKEDIN, very standard professional profile. If the subject meets WP:N, delete history / TNT and allow interested editors to write an encyclopedia article in its place. — siro χ o 11:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Not enough here to justify a standalone article for this person. Possibly some COI here as well. User:Let'srun 18:20, 3 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 11:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Tayo Aduloju

Tayo Aduloju (  | talk | history | 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 sources present and available does not have an in-depth discussion about this entity. Ref bombed to promote. Best, Reading Beans ( talk) 07:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 07:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:49, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete / TNT, WP:NOTLINKEDIN also saw COI note from AfC, which seems likely given the detail and tone. — siro χ o 11:09, 3 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 German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

German High Command orders for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war

German High Command orders for the treatment of Soviet prisoners of war (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Propose merging this article into German atrocities committed against Soviet prisoners of war. This article is just a list of selected clauses in two orders that are linked at the bottom of the article. Doesn't stand alone. Longhornsg ( talk) 04:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge - we especially don't need forks or content overlap in articles dealing with German atrocities. Such articles have been targets for whitewashing edits in the past. This article doesn't have this issue now but it's one more we have to watch for coatracking in the future.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 15:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Delete as I'm not certain there's anything here to merge. Cheers, Last1in ( talk) 14:47, 6 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! 04:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Here's to You (radio program)

Here's to You (radio program) (  | talk | history | 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 sources and no SIGCOV located. Notable at all? InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 04:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Canada. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 04:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All I was able to find were (likely bot-created) articles that reprinted the text of the WP article. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 14:57, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Although as a nationally-networked radio program this would be eligible to keep an article that was properly sourced, existence isn't "inherently" notable enough to exempt it from having to pass WP:GNG on its sourceability. But even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that might not have Googled, I just found glancing namechecks of its existence, and absolutely nothing that would constitute GNG-building coverage or analysis of it at all. It can stay, unlinked, in the historical programming section of CBC Music, but it doesn't need its own standalone article if we can't support one with proper referencing. Bearcat ( talk) 17:04, 4 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! 04:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Charlie Polite

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

Minimal evidence of notability, and most sources I find mention him in passing. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 03:31, 3 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! 04:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Wilson Raynor

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

Long snapper from East Carolina. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5. Searches by myself and User:BeanieFan11 failed to turn up any WP:SIGCOV. The best sources found were routine transactional announcements lacking the required depth. E.g., here and here. Cbl62 ( talk) 03:29, 3 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. It looks like sources have been found to establish notability. Please add them to the article under discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Can I Pet Your Dog?

Can I Pet Your Dog? (  | talk | history | 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 clear that this podcast is notable Plantdrew ( talk) 03:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Frankly, I don't see any reason why this Wikipedia article should be competing with the actual website in search engine results. The existence of a Wikipedia article degrades search engine results for the website/podcast. Plantdrew ( talk) 03:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment it looks like the sources in The Guardian and Splitsider could be enough to satisfy WP:GNG. If not, the article could be merged to Maximum_Fun#Can_I_Pet_Your_Dog? as an WP:ATD. TipsyElephant ( talk) 10:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep just did a brief search and found this A.V. Club source. This in addition to the source in The Guardian and Splitsider are enough to demonstrate notability. I'll do some more searching and see if I can find any other sources. TipsyElephant ( talk) 10:55, 3 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 Speedy Delete‎. Speedy Deleted under A7 by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 00:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Mufti Nasiruddin Chandpuri

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

Fails WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search in English, Bengali, and Arabic yielded no SIGCOV. 〜 Festucalex • talk 02:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Islam, India, and West Bengal. 〜 Festucalex • talk 02:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy A7. This AfD is uncalled for. There is no indication of notability in this one-liner. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ TheAafi: I thought it safer to AfD it because I may have, hypothetically, missed something in Bengali. 〜 Festucalex • talk 04:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete under A7. Deauthorized. ( talk) 05:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete A7. Nothing in Arabic. Will reconsider if any Bengali sources are found. Mccapra ( talk) 21:30, 3 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! 04:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sovereign Capital

Sovereign Capital (  | talk | history | 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 establishment of notability with WP:RS Amigao ( talk) 01:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

These appear in Google News searches and muddy the waters a bit
This is a lengthy article on the UK company. [42]
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count) 02:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
If this article was to survive, it should be renamed to Sovereign Capital Partners, as per the article text and their logo, which would also help distinguish from other usages. AllyD ( talk) 12:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: An article about a finance firm, setting out various of its transactions. The article was better before this IP edit, which also removed the longstanding Advert tag, and at one time listed various industry awards, but these do not appear notable. Searches find announcements of transactions, other firms' press releases about advising this firm on a transaction, appointments, etc., all of which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am seeing insufficient evidence of attained notability. AllyD ( talk) 11:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC) reply
I am the author of the changes. They were made because the previous article was very out of date and therefore inaccurate. I would also point out there are a number of other private equity firms of a similar size and profile which have a Wikipedia entry Tom2001UK ( talk) 11:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a company therefore we apply GNG/ WP:NCORP guidelines. I am unable to locate any source that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 13:36, 9 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 01:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Zac Millar

Zac Millar (  | talk | history | 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:SPORTSCRIT. A career high ranking of 214. No inherent notability in attending Commonwealth Games (like with the Olympic Games). Article curiously says he is a handsome man. LibStar ( talk) 00:44, 3 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! 08:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Finnish-Russian Chamber of Commerce

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

COI article creation (per creator's username). Mentioned in passing in a bunch of sources, but I'm really not finding the required in-depth, independent coverage * Pppery * it has begun... 00:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep: The organization seems to have changed their name to EastCham Finland, see following sources. Searching the English name does not give many results, but using the Finnish name does. A few articles I found are: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. However, around half of these websites are behind a paywall, so I'm not too confident about the quality of those sources, hence the weak keep. ARandomName123 ( talk) 02:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Finland, and Russia. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:16, 20 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment the sources found by ARandomName123 are quite strong, Helsingin Sanomat is the largest newspaper of Finland as well as the newspaper of record. Talouselämä is a large economic magazine and Maaseudun Tulevaisuus is a mid-sized newspaper. The former name "Suomalais-Venäläinen kauppakamari" is used more widely in sources. MKFI ( talk) 08:37, 27 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • weak keep In terms of notability, I think the sources identified both here and in the article are sufficient for a GNG/NORG keep. There's also a good ref from 1946 in the fi.wp article. But I certainly wouldn't object if someone stubified the article by e.g. removing the whole "Description" section. - Ljleppan ( talk) 11:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to Weak Keeps from participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep per ARandomName123 and Ljleppan the significant coverage is rather obvious from the sources given, this more seems to be the same issue I've seen on Swedish-subject AfD discussions where it's difficult for the WP:AVERAGE wikipedian to participate and judge the sources being discussed. -- AlexandraAVX ( talk) 10:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per MKFI - NotAGenious ( talk) 15:17, 3 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. ✗ plicit 00:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The Bride (Kill Bill)

The Bride (Kill Bill) (  | talk | history | 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:NOPAGE. There are only two Kill Bill films and this article doesn't have so much info in it. All the stuff about the creation of the character can go in the Kill Bill Volume 1 article, anything worth keeping from the "Cultural impact" stuff can be merged into one or both articles as appropriate. Popcornfud ( talk) 00:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud ( talk) 00:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Puzzled Oppose, ?, this page is very well sourced. The Bride is one of the most iconic characters of the era, and is listed as 23rd of the 100 greatest movie characters. An article about her seems fully encyclopedic (especially given the esteem of her character in lists such as linked above) and is sought out by hundreds of readers every day. I remember when the amazing page of Kill Bill characters was sadly deleted (and that should certainly be brought back) and now a request to remove the detailed article of THE main character of the two films? Randy Kryn ( talk) 00:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
    There isn't enough material out there to justify a standalone page. A character from a movie being listed as one of the great movie characters (even on multiple lists) does not automatically mean that character needs a separate page — not when it can all be covered in the main movie article. Popcornfud ( talk) 01:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • There is no main movie article, the character is prominent within two films. Your nomination wants to condense this page into the first. This is a major iconic film character, one of the strongest female characters ever portrayed and probably one of the greatest performances on film (when Uma Thurman wasn't nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actress Tarantino said, to paraphrase, "Not only should she have won but they should deliver it to her home personally and not make her come and get it"). The focus should be on improving the page, deleting it surely doesn't seem the way to go. Randy Kryn ( talk) 05:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, very clearly meets WP:GNG. Clicking the links in the AFD template demonstrates this very quickly. Taking a couple minutes, you can find loads of in-depth SIGCOV.
    1. Academic book with 10 pages of SIGCOV: [48]
    2. A bunch more in this one [49]
    3. A few pages more in this one [50]
— siro χ o 11:38, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Thank you for formulating a response based on Wikipedia policy rather than "but this character is iconic".
I'm clearly on the losing side here, but I am skeptical that these sources, concisely summarised in encylopaedic form, could amount to a useful amount of material to justify an entire page. I am seeing them as amounting to about 1000 words of prose, which would make a juicy section in of the Kill Bill pages but, imo, is not enough to form into a standalone article.
Keep in mind that without the analysis, the current Bride article comprises 1) a plot summary of both films 2) a bit of info about the writing of the character 3) a handful of pop-culture influences, all of which should already be in the Kill Bill articles. Popcornfud ( talk) 19:20, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article on this could absolutely be improved, it just needs some time, effort, and research. A quick search showed that the character has been extensively discussed in the academic sphere and has even been the central focus of quite a few dissertations. It's just a matter of finding the ones that focus specifically on her as opposed to in passing for the film. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Something else to add: I'm adding stuff to the "see also" section I've created. One thing to keep in mind is that because the film is so utterly and completely central to the film a lot of the scholarly sources that seem to be just about the film are really about her in specific. This is what I meant by ones that focus specifically on her as opposed to the film. The ones that would be more about the character will go more into what she symbolizes, her character drives, her changes during the course of the two films, and so on. The ones that are more about the film will take less of a focus and be more about the storyline and characters as a whole, as well as the symbolism in the movie in general. It's sometimes a subtle difference, but there's a difference. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Between the couple of scholarly sources that were already present in the article at the time of the nomination and the sources brought up above, the character easily passes the WP:GNG on their own merits. And using her real name of "Beatrix Kiddo" as the search words bring up even more significant coverage. Its somewhat rare for me to be convinced that a character that only appeared in a single piece of media has enough coverage that goes beyond mentions in general discussions on that piece of media to support an independent article. But, in this case, there clearly is. Rorshacma ( talk) 15:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I'm pretty confused by the proposal from the nom. The subject has solid sources provided both here by siroxo and on the article itself. No question this should be kept. User:Let'srun 18:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Searching under Beatrix Kiddo, there are whole journal articles comparing this character to Lara Croft from the Tomb Raider games, comparing her to Shakespeare’s Tamora in Titus Andronicus, exploring the Oedipal relationship with Bill, and works exploring her as a white character in an Asian stereotype. There are articles in multiple languages as well. In short, there is a great depth to the research specifically on this character, which clearly shows reliable and significant coverage. I think this was hastily nominated. LingLass ( talk) 23:55, 4 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 00:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

IP Fabrics

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

General notability is lacking. One of many non-notable articles that have been created and have basically been forgotten about that should be removed. Graywalls ( talk) 00:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Oregon. Graywalls ( talk) 00:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete An article about non-notable company that sounds very much like a promotional advertisement. Paul H. ( talk) 02:29, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: An article setting out the wares of a company which was still being described as a start-up in 2011 local coverage of legal action by its former CEO [51]. Looking at Wayback snapshots, their former website seemed to stop reporting company initiatives in 2015, during which year it was acquired by Yaana Technologies [52]. I am not seeing anything to demonstrate that notability was ever attained. AllyD ( talk) 07:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete only one of the cited sources (the first one) might rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV, but it's rather routine, and all the other are either non-independent or unavailable. I can't find anything else. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 15:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Just not enough WP:SIGCOV here to meet the GNG, and like others I was unable to find anything else. User:Let'srun 18:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete for lack of notability. This article was created by Nwnittany which appears to be a single-purpose account created for promotion of the company. This account was created in December 2010 and created this article and then added a link to it in January 2011 and never did any other edits at all. Anton.bersh ( talk) 21:16, 8 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_3&oldid=1169932635"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE