Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 09 May 11 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Xbox (console) Other possible merge targets have been mentioned. If necessary, possibly changing to a different target can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty ( talk) 09:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Xbox Exhibition disks

Xbox Exhibition disks (  | talk | history | 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's topic is of a nature that makes it very hard to identify reliable and verifiable sources, which creates an arguable case of lack of notability under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. In searching for mention of the series, there is next to nothing. Any mention tends to be under primary sources that lists their contents, or, as in the article, link to the disks on the Internet Archive. I can only find one secondary source that mentions the series in very minor passing from Kotaku, which I have included on the article. As raised on the talk page over a decade ago, plenty of platforms have demo disks; that they were distributed by Microsoft to market the Xbox may be better addressed on the page for the console itself. Grateful for your thoughts. Vrxces ( talk) 00:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to game demo it's looking like. It could be discussed as part of a section about the history of game demos. However, the original content they contain does not seem sufficient to merit an article, it seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: SIGCOV is not a requirement for notability, it merely generates a presumption as to notability if SIGCOV can be established. Even without SIGCOV, I think GNG is met here. XBOX had a massive cultural impact, and as the Kotaku article notes, these discs were a part of that system's launch. Furthermore, they were the origins of what eventually became DLC. Additionally, these disks are highly prized by collectors, and that value as a collectable lends some strength to these disks being regarded as notable in their own right. For the above reasons I disagree that this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Perhaps an individual article for each of these discs would be so; but in a collected list article like we have here, I think its fine and encyclopedic. I don't think a merge with game demo would be appropriate. What makes these disks notable is not the fact that they were game demos per se; but that they were part of the XBOX's launch marketing, the launch marketing for numerous notable titles, and remain prized by collectors. As far as individual demo disks go, this series of demo disks are about nearly as notable as you get. Jack4576 ( talk) 11:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    That is a false interpretation of GNG policy. SIGCOV is indeed required for notability. Articles without SIGCOV are not notable or suitable for Wikipedia, period. "Presumed" means that even IF a topic has SIGCOV, it may still not be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    You're reading that policy wrong. Topics are presumed notable with SIGCOV, however, it is still possible for some topics to be assessed as notable outside of the aforementioned GNG presumption. Ultimately if SIGCOV is not met it requires a judgement call on the facts, engaging with what the subject of the article is, and what it is not, with an assessment made as to whether an entry would be notable enough to be encyclopedic. Jack4576 ( talk) 14:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    There are plenty of articles without SIGCOV where the subject of the article has been found through discussion to be otherwise notable upon review. See AfD discussions here, here, as examples; although with even a minimal amount of effort you can find more.
    For this case, there are verifiable characteristics of this subject that tend toward a conclusion as to its cultural notability. I've spelled them out in my previous comments above. Jack4576 ( talk) 15:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    ???? The ones you linked are not even finished yet, so I'm not sure how you can use them as proof an article with no SIGCOV was kept. This unfinished essay is literally arguing your point should be implemented - the implication being that right now, it isn't. SIGCOV is required. Period. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 16:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I’ve never seen this essay before. I’m merely referring to the actual wording of the GNG guideline itself, which does not unequivocally state that SIGCOV is always required. For that reason I actually disagree with the premise of the essay you’ve linked.
    Yes the AfD’s I linked aren’t complete, but they’re practically at consensus; and if you can be bothered it really isn’t that hard to find other AfD’s where notability has been established without SIGCOV. Jack4576 ( talk) 16:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I think you need to spend less time arguing SIGCOV isn't necessary (long shot argument) and more on establishing its notability in any valid sense. Nothing you've particularly said has been backed by reliable sources or even represented in the article. It's just a barebones list of some games on some demo disks. This looks more like a trivial stub you'd see on an Xbox fan wikia or something. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    If, the only reason that people provide for deletion is 'No SIGCOV' without actually engaging in a discussion as to a subject's actual encyclopedic notability; (which would actually require an assessment of what we can determine a subject is and what a subject is not); then, it is necessary to remind people that SIGCOV is not a strict requirement under GNG. This is not a 'long shot' argument. This is me calling out legalistic arguments that fail to engage in an actual assessment of a subject. Indeed, a frustrating legalistic argument, as it is an argument that is (wilfully?) ignorant of the actual wording of the GNG policy.
    Regardless, I have made valid arguments as to this subject's notability; if you were willing to engage with them directly.
    For example, the Kotaku article referenced documents that these demo disks were a precursor to the introduction of DLC. That seems to me a unique attribute about this subject that generates an argument that this subject is notable.
    If you disagree with the conclusions of that argument; feel free to do so. To my mind though, that unique aspect (the DLC precursor aspect) is enough to merit this article being a keep, albeit perhaps a weak keep. Jack4576 ( talk) 10:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, but the meaning you're extrapolating from a single passing mention in a Kotaku article is not even close to persuasive to me. Sergecross73 msg me 11:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    OK, reasonable minds may differ Jack4576 ( talk) 11:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'll say it again - you are straight up incorrect about the "actual wording" of GNG. It's not even a matter of opinion, you are just reading it wrong. Lower on the page under WP:WHYN, it states, straight up, We require "significant coverage". Continuing to ignore people telling you that has the potential to rise to WP:IDHT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Even beyond that, the GNG is pretty clear about the multiple sources part too. They're not even clearing that incredibly low bar at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    "multiple sources are generally expected" not "multiple sources are required" Jack4576 ( talk) 15:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Have...you historically found success in keeping an article with only a single reference that only mentions the subject in passing? I've been participating at AFD for over a decade, and let me tell you...I have not. I don't recall this ever working for someone without at least citing some other subject-specific notability requirement. This sort of interpretation would effectively render the GNG useless outside of subjects being complete hoaxes. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    You are correct that WP:WHYN states SIGCOV is a requirement.
    However, the actual general notability guideline as stated, articulates the notability issue in terms of the word presumption; if SIGCOV were actually a requirement, the GNG sentence would read:
    "A topic is suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
    Instead it reads:
    "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."
    Why would it read that way, unless implicitly, it was possible (in some limited and appropriate circumstances) for a subject to be notable even if SIGCOV was not demonstrated? What would be the utility of the SIGCOV presumption if it would always be required.
    I am happy to stop commenting about this and follow consensus if you wish to take this to an RfC. In the meantime, I am engaging in good faith, so your pointing to WP:IDHT is inappropriate. Jack4576 ( talk) 15:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Higher up in WP:GNG it explains why "presumed" is used. Articles that fall under WP:NOT may still not merit articles, despite passing the first, significant coverage criterion. However, articles like WP:GOLDENRULE clearly state that SIGCOV is non-negotiable. Start an RfC on the subject if you wish, but it is likely you will be told the exact same thing. After all, not having a SIGCOV requirement would make almost anything notable, and the GNG would be pointless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 08:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    GOLDENRULE is not policy. Jack4576 ( talk) 09:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    And your entire argument hinges on a single passing mention and your own unfounded assertion of importance that has persuaded zero participants thus far. Give it a rest. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    keep your comments in reply relevant please Jack4576 ( talk) 02:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm pointing out the irony of you complaining about an essay being "not policy" when your entire stance isn't rooted in policy, essay, or...anything at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to game demo per Zxcvbnm. Fails GNG, lack of SIGCOV. If viewed as a list, it fails LISTN as well. -- ferret ( talk) 20:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per mine and ferrets comments above. Not even close to enough sourcing, in quality or quantity, to warrant a stand-alone article. Wouldn't even be opposed to a delete honestly. Sergecross73 msg me 11:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This could be covered in game demo, or alternatively in Xbox (console). It's hard to see why the topic might need a page unto itself. Even if there were much more sourcing available than there is, the subject isn't conceptually separate to such a degree that a dedicated page makes sense. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Xbox (console) or Microsoft Game Studios, or more likely, just redirect. There is simply no assertion of notability in the article. I don't understand what all that rambling above is. It seems to be really torturing the definition of the word 'presumed', which is literally defined in more detail in the second sentence at WP:GNG. If you think the topic is notable, WP:THENFIXIT. Axem Titanium ( talk) 23:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If I am understanding the above discussion, the contention is that there can be articles that satisfy WP:GNG without WP:SIGCOV as it is only a mere presumption of notability, in the flavor of WP:NEXIST and arguments such as WP:BARE. The rebuttal has been on WP:NRV and that there is, at this moment, one passing mention in sources illustrating this alternative notability. The intent of framing WP:SIGCOV as a presumption for notability and not a requirement reads to me to establish that the standard is higher than WP:SIGCOV alone, not that the WP:SIGCOV is not a substantial consideration in establishing WP:GNG. Vrxces ( talk) 00:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Xbox (console) (or another consensus target if one emerges).  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, either to Xbox (console) or Game demo per above. The argument that WP:SIGCOV is not needed to pass WP:GNG is a novel on to me. However that seems to be rebutted by by the second sentence of WP:GNG, which explains that the use of "Presumed" is about an article with SIGCOV not getting an article for other reasons, and not an article being kept without SIGCOV. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 32nd Aviation Division. Randykitty ( talk) 09:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

1st Fighter Regiment (Yugoslavia)

1st Fighter Regiment (Yugoslavia) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 19:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

According to the article, the regiment only existed for a few months after the end of WW2. Only source cited seems to be a comprehensive survey of the Yugoslav Air Force. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 19:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Question: GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Which part of this requirement do you think is not met? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
“Significant coverage” RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 08:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Given the airframes used, there is bound to be coverage in books on those airframes as well as Yugoslavia sources. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
First we’d have to locate said coverage. Why would such a source cover the topic beyond a brief mention like “The Hurricanes were briefly operated by the 1st Fighter Regiment” though? RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 08:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment leaning "not keep" on this one. Does anyone know of a good merge candidate? - Ljleppan ( talk) 16:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'll just note myself down as delete, as nobody seems to have produced further sourcing: I'm not at all convinced that a single source is enough for a GNG pass. While I'd prefer to merge, I don't know of a good target. Please ping me if further sourcing or a good merge target is identified. - Ljleppan ( talk) 16:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Ljleppan Another editor suggested 32nd Aviation Division RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 23:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm WP:AGF on it being a proper target, but merge to that sounds fine. Ljleppan ( talk) 12:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Organization-wise, I would prefer keep, but if the deck is stacked towards deleting, then merge and redirect to 32nd Aviation Division (per Necrothesp) and keep categories and the interwiki connection on the redirect page. There is little prospect to much greater expansion for this 3-months lasting military unit. Also, a navbox wouldn't be a bad idea. – Vipz ( talk) 07:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to 32nd Aviation Division per above. Note that WP:MILUNIT is an essay, not an official Wikipedia guideline or policy and thus has no relevance in AfD's. Alvaldi ( talk) 20:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    • It's an essay formulated after considerable discussion by people who know what they're talking about! It has also generally been held to be consensus at AfDs that 'major units' are notable. So yes, it does have relevance. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
      WP:MILUNIT is an essay/advice by a WikiProject, not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and thus passing or failing it has no relevance in AfD's. WP:GNG is the controlling guideline here. Note that any consensus created by a WikiProject is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and does not overwrite any formal Wikipedia policy or guideline. WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Alvaldi ( talk) 13:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per above. AryKun ( talk) 04:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to 32nd Aviation Division as above. I'm aware WP:MILUNIT is an essay, but even though this article is brief, it still deserves to be remembered in some way. Equine-man ( talk) 13:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge to 32nd Aviation Division.  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Rivka Ladin

Rivka Ladin (  | talk | history | 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. Attempts to find sources for notability in WP:BEFORE came up empty handed. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 23:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: also attempted WP:BEFORE and found nothing Jack4576 ( talk) 11:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. At the very least, the article should mention the subject's current position/institution/company and major contributions to the field, and there aren't even any RS on that. -- Tserton ( talk) 20:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I added 2 references proving she holds a patent, and published multiple papers about distributed computing. She worked for Digital Equipment Corporation and Compaq. She is (a retired) Director at Hewlett-Packard. Geertivp ( talk) 10:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think that the simple fact of holding a patent is anything to write home about - it depends whether the patent is widely used and whether it has been defended successfully in court. The subject has contributed to several highly cited papers, but citations in computer science are so high that I don't know whether she passes WP:PROF#C1 on their basis. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, regretfully. I am hesitant to delete any articles about Women in STEM, since there is such legion gender discrimination in those fields. That having been said, there is too little about the person readily available online to make even a decent stub. I would not oppose userfication, even if it's dumped in my user space. Bearian ( talk) 14:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator and all but one !votes for Keep. (non-admin closure) — MaxnaCarta  (  💬 •  📝 ) 08:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Unseen University

AfDs for this article:
Unseen University (  | talk | history | 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 fictional university, as far as I can tell, fails WP:GNG. Additionally, it is made up of entirely plot summary, which is forbidden under WP:NOT. As for the previous AFDs, the last one was in 2010. QuicoleJR ( talk) 23:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

This is clearly not a plot summary, but it does need more references. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 23:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Please explain where the article mentions Unseen University's real-life importance or reception. QuicoleJR ( talk) 23:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Check out the sources I posted in the second AFD a dozen years ago. Most of those links still appear live. If you'd prefer, it is well within the nominator's remit to do up a source evaluation matrix on them. Jclemens ( talk) 00:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources I brought up a dozen years ago and two AfDs back. Jclemens ( talk) 00:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Jclemens . If people don't want to keep as a standalone article, merge to Discworld, but I think it should be kept. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
That's possible, but creates all sorts of SIZE issues. Fact is, we have a bunch of sprawling articles that could all stand to be tightened up, but being poorly maintained is not a deletion criterion. Jclemens ( talk) 00:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Jclemens. Also Unseen University and Discworld have become part pf popular culture in many places. -- Bduke ( talk) 05:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per Jclemens Jack4576 ( talk) 11:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

McKinsey Quarterly

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

Not-notable, self-promotion, advert, out-of-date Mimi Ho Kora ( talk) 22:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Being promotional (advert) or out-of-date are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. -- Randykitty ( talk) 05:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep: the sources (particularly the Financial Times source) establish that this a highly influential magazine within its circles. The magazine meets WP:BKCRIT criteron #1 as it has been the subject of multiple newspaper articles independent of itself.
It doesn't matter that McKinsey sponsors this publication for its own ulterior motives; the magazine has still had a notable impact in its own right. The fact that the magazine itself is self-promotion; is a separate issue to whether this wiki entry is self-promotion. I've made some edits to bring it more in line with NPOV. Jack4576 ( talk) 11:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
There surely is a self-promotion aspect to McKinsey's publishing this periodical, but nonetheless it gets sufficient outside attention to regard it as notable. It's not just your random run-of-the-mill company newsletter. SchnitteUK ( talk) 21:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep McKinsey Quarterly is a highly regarded publication in the business world. To the nominator, please be WP:BOLD. RPSkokie ( talk) 09:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Jack4576 and SchnitteUK. Passes WP:BKCRIT. Sal2100 ( talk) 21:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems to be snowing here, and nom has indicated a willingness to withdraw. There is no need to prolong this AfD. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

George Griffith

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

Only two sources are two footnotes which attribute quotes within the article, but do not source any biographical information. No showing of SIGCOV. More of an essay or thinkpiece rather than an encyclopedic article. Moving for deletion on the basis of WP:TNT. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and England. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but yes, rewrite. Certainly a notable author, see e.g. the entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and likewise in Don D'Ammassa's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. I'll see if I can find the time to fix the article while the AfD discussion is open. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    How about DRAFTIFY as an AtD? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 22:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Merits entries in The Oxford Companion to Edwardian Fiction (1997) and The Oxford Companion to English Literature (2009). DuncanHill ( talk) 23:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep discussed as a subject in academic literature:
    Mollmann, Steven. “Air-Ships and the Technological Revolution: Detached Violence in George Griffith and H.G. Wells.” Science Fiction Studies 42, no. 1 (March 2015): 20–41. doi:10.5621/sciefictstud.42.1.0020.
    Stoil, Michael J. 2007. “Globalization by Gaslight: Literary Anticipation of Technology’s Effect on State Sovereignty, 1871-1918.” Conference Papers -- International Studies Association, 1–20
    WOOD, HARRY. “Competing Prophets: H. G. Wells, George Griffith, and Visions of Future War, 1893-1914.” Wellsian, no. 38 (January 2015): 5–23. Jclemens ( talk) 00:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: At this point, I'm willing to withdraw the nom, but before I do, I'd like some assurance that those who've voted so far are in turn willing to start work on overhauling this article. I don't want to close the discussion and have everyone go their separate ways, ignoring the work that needs to be done here. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 01:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    ... And why should we do it, rather than you? You assume some privileged position to nominate stuff for deletion, and then when other people have done the work to prove that your nomination would be a bad idea, turn around and demand they do the rest of the work? Do read WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, please, and when you've done so, please decide whether you want to fix this article, or leave it unenhanced and move on to critique some other article without expending any effort to fix this article, which your efforts have correctly identified as not living up to its potential. Jclemens ( talk) 04:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Because I'm humble enough to admit I don't know everything? You've already found two good sources, so why not use them? I suppose I could have just stubified this article to remove all the unsourced material, but I'd rather try and motivate people to get something done. Or perhaps we should just let it sit dormant for another decade while everyone's busy writing episode recap "articles" for currently popular TV shows? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 21:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    If you intend to motivate people by threatening articles with deletion just because they could be improved but haven't been, I have a real problem with that approach. It's not limited to you, but it is inappropriate wherever it shows up. If you want to improve articles, or simply don't know how to tell if something is notable or not, come to my talk page with a question and I'll teach you how to source things. Others can teach you how to edit problematic articles appropriately, so that they are improved, but still have a roadmap for further improvement. Much more productive and collegial. Jclemens ( talk) 02:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Appreciate the offer. I'll consider that in the future. For now, TompaDompa's doing a great job overhauling this article without your help. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 04:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Jclemens, that was needlessly antagonistic. Just Another Cringy Username nominated this for deletion on the basis that it needs to be rewritten from scratch, an observation that is correct, and offered the compromise solution of turning it into a draft which is a fairly reasonable suggestion considering that the article was in a terrible state and most of the sources are not exactly easily accessible ( The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction notwithstanding). I don't think it's fair to characterize that as assuming a privileged position, nor do I think it's accurate to say that "other people have done the work to prove that your nomination would be a bad idea". When the objection is that the article is in need of a complete rewrite, as in this case, it's reasonable to want to make sure that that will actually happen rather than just establish that it would be possible before withdrawing one's objection. At any rate, I've started rewriting this and requested a few sources from WP:RX for that purpose. TompaDompa ( talk) 01:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    "Needs a rewrite" is not grounds for deletion, and neither is "everyone's busy writing episode recap "articles" for currently popular TV shows". Any editor who makes a habit of nominating articles for deletion because they think they need rewrites is very likely to find themselves topic banned from AfD. If an editor think an article needs a rewrite then they can do it themself, ask on the article talk page, find a relevant wikiproject and ask there, or just move on and accept that the world is not perfect. What they must not do is abuse AfD to get it. DuncanHill ( talk) 01:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Beat me to it, thank you. "Needs a rewrite" is a good argument for... wait for it... a rewrite. Not a deletion. Jclemens ( talk) 01:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Needing a complete rewrite actually can be grounds for deletion, canonically, under WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. But of course a rewrite is preferable in such instances, and that is currently underway. You are both very welcome to join the effort. TompaDompa ( talk) 01:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Having looked over two of the sources added to the article, most of the content pre-nomination was justifiable and what it wanted was sourcing more than a re-write. The specifics of Deletion reason 14 don't look to apply in this case GraemeLeggett ( talk) 07:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    TompaDompa, Once again you're demonstrating a skewed and inaccurate view of deletion policy. Which part of WP:NOT says "badly written articles should be deleted"? It doesn't. "Not suitable" in deletion reason 14 is a reference to WP:NOT and nothing else: if it isn't in NOT, it's not covered by deletion reason 14. Do you acknowledge your error here? Jclemens ( talk) 21:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    The nomination says More of an essay or thinkpiece rather than an encyclopedic article. That's covered by WP:NOT ( WP:NOTESSAY), and that's what I was referring to. I could have been clearer about that, I suppose. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Extremely notable early science fiction author. And with regards to fixing the article, it's not currently in horrible shape (although yes, it needs work). But that said, Wikipedia's notability guidelines are very clear that notability is established by the subject of the article, not the content or the condition of the article itself. Also worth noting that the same Wikipedia notability guideline states that "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article."-- SouthernNights ( talk) 15:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Notability is shown in the reliable sources about the subject. The article needs cleaning up, but that does not justify deleting it. Passes WP:GNG and BASIC. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 23:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 09:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Sudipto Sen

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

Has produced a notable film, related coverage all around (taking quotes, etc) but notability is not inherited and there is no significant independent and secondary coverage besides that of the film; fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E applies Tayi Arajakate Talk 21:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: was specifically profiled and interviewed in 'The Times of India', this amounts to SIGCOV, doesn't matter that the coverage / interview intersected with his film promotion, the SIGCOV means he is presumed notable Jack4576 ( talk) 11:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Are you referring to this interview? It's not a profile, its a short interview about the film. Interviews are also not independent coverage, and WP:TOI in particular often engages in undisclosed advertorials and pay-for-coverage practices, should never be used to determine a subject's notability on its own. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Interviews aren't independent coverage? Even when that interview is conducted by an independent publication, regarding a topic independent of the subject? News to me. This interview doesn't necessarily look like its been paid for. Jack4576 ( talk) 15:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Are you seriously claiming things the subject says are independent of the subject? Interview content fails independence and is primary (per OR, which lists examples of primary documents like original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage,... JoelleJay ( talk) 17:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
the fact that a decision was made to interview him, is a decision that was made independent of the subject.
the fact that he was interviewed means he has been granted significant coverage by the media; even if the claims made in that interview can't be relied upon. Hence the existence of the interview article is independent, but the content of it is not Jack4576 ( talk) 14:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: All the media coverage is because of controversies surrounding a film made by him. There is no independent indepth coverage from any reliable sources to meet GNG. He already fails WP:FILMMAKER as the subject is not a part of multiple film productions. Thesixserra ( talk) 03:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. An interview in a "questionably reliable" newspaper is nowhere near SIGCOV, and no other refs have been proffered as counting toward GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The subject has been covered by various primary and secondary sources for his previous works. His film "The Last Monk" (2006) has a well referenced article here on Wikipedia. Sources covering the subject and his prior works include: short film "Akhnoor" [1] (2007); an article in 2014 detailing the subject and his career; feature films "Lucknow Times" (2015), and "Aasma" (2018); documentary film "In The Name of love" (2021), covered by The film catalogue, which has similar theme as his feature film "The Kerala Story" (2023). The subject is mentioned with his photograph in this press release by the Government of India for his non-feature film "Gurujana" in 2022. He was the only Indian jury member among the International Jury at the 53rd International Film Festival of India [2]. As such the subject is quite notable. Rim sim ( talk) 12:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    See gish gallop:
    • Indiancine is like IMDB; an user-edited catalog of Indian movies. Not RS; see WP:IMDB.
    • Urbanasian - which is not a RS (no editorial policy etc.) - carrying PR.
    • An one-paragraph-long coverage of an actress shooting for a film which, incidentally, is directed by Sen. WP:TRIVIAL and we do not rely on TOI for determining notability of film-artists.
    • Transclusion of an IMDB page about a film, by AVClub. Not RS; see WP:IMDB.
    • Some one-man-run film cataloging website. Not RS.
    • A press release by Government Of India. Not RS.
    • A news-article that covers the above event in six lines.
    TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Agree with @ User:Tayi Arajakate. Grabup ( talk) 06:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge only BLP quality sourced material to section in The Kerala Story; fails WP:BLP, WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E applies. Currently does not have sourcing for a stand alone bio, but the content will improve the target. If new sourcing about the subject (not 1E coverage) becomes available it can be split.  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination and TimothyBlue. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete TrangaBellam's assessment above indicates GNG is not met. LibStar ( talk) 04:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Yaghob Eissa

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

Played half a match of football then disappeared. Searching in Arabic (يعقوب عيسى) did not yield any WP:SIGCOV and all I can find were the database sites Kooora and Soccerway, both already cited. It would appear that this footballer fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5 and should be deleted. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC criterion 5, I could find no interviews, articles or other material that can provide WP:SIGCOV for the subject aside from basic statistics on their performance. The Night Watch (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ Fats40boy11 ( talk) 05:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Soccer Mania

Soccer Mania (  | talk | history | 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 cites no sources and fails WP:GNG. I have not found any reliable sources for this video game, and most searches come back with Football Mania (known as Soccer Mania outside Europe) which released at a later date in 2002. Please let me know if anyone has more luck than me when looking for a reliable source. Fats40boy11 ( talk) 20:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

List of 100th episodes

List of 100th 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)

Unencyclopedic cross-categorisation and OR. Mccapra ( talk) 20:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:LISTCRUFT. Indiscriminate trivia. Ajf773 ( talk) 21:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please elaborate further on ways it can be more encylopedic OLI 15:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Ajf773: simply not encyclopaedic. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 21:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please elaborate further on ways it can be more encylopedic OLI 15:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
It isn't a notable cross categorisation even in the slightest. Where are the sources that discuss this group of episodes as a whole? This is no more notable than, say, a list of 50th episodes or a list of 200th episodes of random TV series. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Many shows make a point of having a one hundreth episode as opossed to fifty or two hundred OLI 04:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as there is a list for spin offs. There is also a article for the topic OLI 22:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A godawful spin-off of the American television in (year) articles, where these 'century milestone' episodes are noted and sourced appropriately to the year of airing...and these aren't. Presumably this was supposed to be a list of 100th episode articles where we do have one, before we decided episode articles should be better sourced to meet GNG than one Metacritic rating and AV Club review. Nate • ( chatter) 23:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    That second part of that doesnt make sense. The article is based off of List of television spin-offs I am working on the article. Could you please provide actual feedback to help improve it? OLI 03:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I have begun adressing your concern and begun adding sources OLI 16:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • What would help is realizing television history didn't start suddenly in 1998; this article is heavily bent towards recent series and this article can't hope to capture so many 100th episodes of so many series. You not only can't catalog every one, but there has to be some filters (for instance, daily news and talk series, daytime, late night...the 100th episode of a reality series isn't celebrated because it's randomly in the middle of some season/production cycle). Nate • ( chatter) 23:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Im going to catalouge older ones I simply started by adding ones I know had 100 episodes OLI 14:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
How about it is converted into a catagory and will include several pages. I think this would be a good compramise OLI 19:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete LISTCRUFT, and an overall nonsense topic (will we now make 50th episode lists? 150 episodes?). AryKun ( talk) 04:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I think this was answered by another person. So if your going to make useless additions to the conversation here is what he said :::: Many shows make a point of having a one hundreth episode as opossed to fifty or two hundred OLI 04:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[ reply reply
    "Many shows make a point of having a one hundredth episode" No, shows celebrate their 50th and 200th episodes as well, if they ever get to that point. My concern is not whether shows celebrate these episodes, it's whether RS discuss series with 100 episodes as a group (they don't) and whether this milestone is significant enough for list (it's not). This milestone only appears significant in the context of American syndicated shows; if you started adding daily soaps from, say, India to the list, you would soon have several thousand shows with no relevance even in the places they aired clogging up this article.
    Also, I agree that the concept of a 100th episode is notable, which is why we have an article on it. We don't need a list trying to just SYNTH together every series which has ever run for 100 episodes. AryKun ( talk) 10:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. 100th episode of what exactly? What is the scope of this article? What are the criteria for inclusion? Where has the topic been talked about as a whole? It's so vague; the list has little or no meaning. Rupples ( talk) 16:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Eurovision Choir 2023

Eurovision Choir 2023 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An event taking place at an unknown date in an unknown venue. Article cited solely to Eurovoix the Eurovision news site, and Twitter. Not currently widely taked about in reliable independent sources, possibly WP:TOOSOON or maybe not even notable enough for its own article and needs redirecting to Eurovision Choir? Sionk ( talk) 20:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Belgium, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Wales. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • draftify - the current article is poorly reverenced, plus WP:CRYSTAL. From the article I see many countries cancelled participation. If low attendance, the event may well sizzle. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 00:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 10:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify. The articles about the prior years' events seem to have enough coverage, so this one might be as notable. Currently WP:TOOSOON. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 07:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I note that the event now appears to have been cancelled competely. Sionk ( talk) 20:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; draftification is for articles that have potential ( WP:ATD-I), and since the announcement of the cancellation (without clarification, and with very little media coverage of the announcement), I find it very unlikely that this article can still grow. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 20:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Agree that draftifying should be reserved for articles with scope for growth. It appears at this stage that with the supposed cancellation of the event that there is very limited scope for continued development. Sims2aholic8 ( talk) 20:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pro Evolution Soccer. ✗ plicit 23:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Winning Eleven Online

Winning Eleven Online (  | talk | history | 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 fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I haven’t been able to find any sources that would help establish notability. However, if anyone is able to find any sources that would help the article to pass GNG, I would be willing to withdraw this AFD. Fats40boy11 ( talk) 20:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Andrew Kimbrell

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

Apart from a couple of listicles, I can't find any independent biographical sources about this subject. Most of the superficial referenciness is taken from directories or "About" pages of groups he is part of. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete: no reliable sources at all Jack4576 ( talk) 11:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ closed as article has been speedy deleted by another administrator. Bearcat ( talk) 20:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Renná Bruce

Renná Bruce (  | talk | history | 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-advertorialized article about a writer and artist, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for writers or artists. As always, neither writers nor artists are "inherently" notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because their work exists -- notability has to be supported by evidence that the person has received external coverage and analysis to validate their significance, such as major literary or arts awards and/or the reception of enough media coverage about them and their work to pass WP:GNG.
But there are just three footnotes here, of which two are online bookstores that are not support for notability at all, and the third comes from a minor niche publication that would be fine for use if there were better sources alongside it, but is not significant enough to singlehandedly get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only secondary source on the table.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have considerably better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 18:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 18:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Have added another couple of reviews. There is also this which I cannot access from UK, title being "Latest Jazlyn J book takes on green scene". Pam D 07:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The poor sourcing of both this and Robert Mark Carpenter has led me to ask the creating editor whether they have a COI. Pam D 07:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I had the same impression. Thanks for asking. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete' I am not finding any reliable sourcing for the biographical information presented in the article. Additionally, the books are published by Jazlyn J Books, which seems to be partially owned by Renná Bruce, so essentially self-published. All signs point to the editor as starting a "career" as an editor. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 20:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete:my WP:AGF has expired, as the creating editor has not replied to my enquiry on their talk page about a possible COI although they have created two drafts and one new article since I posted there. The new article includes date of birth info etc which does not seem to appear in any of the sources provided. It appears that this editor probably has a COI with the subjects of their articles. Pam D 07:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The available sourcing isn't enough to indicate that the Jazlyn J series is a "well-known body of work". Moreover, COI editing needs to be nipped in the bud. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Picture of the Last Man to Die. ✗ plicit 23:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Raymond J. Bowman

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

US WWII enlisted soldier. WP:BIO1E, known only for being the subject of the notable photograph The Picture of the Last Man to Die, and insofar as I can tell not substantially covered in reliable secondary sources for other reasons. Some of the content could be merged to the article about the image, but not the overly elaborate infobox, etc. Sandstein 18:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Bassline Boys

Bassline Boys (  | talk | history | 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:MUSICBIO. Binksternet ( talk) 18:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Warbeat

Warbeat (  | talk | history | 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:NSONG. Binksternet ( talk) 18:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Barzeh car bombing

2023 Barzeh car bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, such attacks/incidents have become commonplace and are not worthy of a separate article. One death and a few injured is not global news. So I recommend deleting. Dl.thinker ( talk) 18:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Article should stay up though be removed from current events page 71.184.221.103 ( talk) 22:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

i personally feel the page should not be deleted as it is an attack within the capital which are considered rare ever since the government was able to claim back the city from rebels in 2018. Dubstar44

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Ecrusized ( talk) 08:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete These events are common in Syria, even in government-held towns. An event that may be considered rare as it is in SAA-controlled territory is still common for the country. Although it is a saddening event as in the conflict overall, it still doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Cutlass Ciera 13:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Alberta Debate And Speech Association

Alberta Debate And Speech Association (  | talk | history | 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 search only produced sources related to the organisation giving awards. I do not believe that it fulfils WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Z1720 ( talk) 17:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cunard's extensive search apparently fails to convince the other editors here (or even convinces them that available sourcing is insufficient). Randykitty ( talk) 09:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Olivia Sanabia

Olivia Sanabia (  | talk | history | 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 to meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG notability requirements, with a lack of high-quality reliable sources and significant coverage. Recent news articles about her, which include her being in a parade or holiday season projects in late 2022, have been simply mere mention or in such a way that she's not shown as prominent. Even a Billboard article talking about Tanya Tucker's A Nashville Country Christmas [4] gives Sanabia only a mere mention.

She may barely pass WP:NACTOR, with her more notable projects in Just Add Magic and Coop & Cami Ask the World, but recent, successful AfD's I've seen for a couple of other actresses who would technically meet NACTOR (e.g., Abby Donnelly and Lauren Lindsey Donzis) are indicating that the more important guidelines for notability are the general ones above, and the current sourcing in this article, plus what I could scrape from searching, are insufficient in establishing that.

Sanabia doesn't meet the WP:NSINGER requirements. Three songs listed, none of which have articles and none of which have made a presence on a national music chart that isn't WP:SINGLEVENDOR (so Spotify and Apple are excluded in this criterion). Even if she were to meet NSINGER, like she does NACTOR (again, barely), there must be significant coverage in a variety of reliable sources to establish that and overall notability. As of right now, however, WP:TOOSOON on NSINGER.

This has been made a redirect before, to her main project Just Add Magic. Because she is main cast in Coop & Cami... as well, redirect isn't feasible at all. I might have thoughts of placing this in draft space instead, but I can't say her acting and/or singing careers are expected to blossom big in the next couple of years. So I'm favoring deletion. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 17:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I'm going to open with a comment – subject gets only passing mentions in Variety, THR, and Deadline, and went almost entirely unmentioned in Entertainment Weekly (and New York Times). This is a bad sign for passing WP:BASIC... That said, she does appear to have a profile in Los Angeles Times from 2016, though it's in their "sub-publication"(?) called High School Insider (which likely lessens its importance as a source): [5]
    I'm definitely leaning "delete" here (draftify might make sense if she has stuff in the pipeline, but I don't see any evidence for that) – I think this may be another case where a subject "passes" WP:NACTOR, but only in a technical sense, but fails the far more important WP:BASIC criteria. However, I would like to see if someone comes up with anything else first. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: OK, it's been a while now, and no one has come up with anything. I'm going to formally vote "delete" – unless somebody comes up with something else, there is just not enough here to clearly pass WP:BASIC. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 17:35, 10 May 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. Schulte, Stephanie (2016-01-13). "TV: Acting makes magic happen for Corona girl on Amazon series". The Press-Enterprise. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Six years ago, Olivia Sanabia was in a movie theater watching “Ramona and Beezus” when she knew immediately what career path she would take. ... Olivia was only 6 years old. Now 12, the Corona actress has landed a leading role in the new Amazon series “Just Add Magic,” which will air its first full season Friday. ... Determined, Olivia honed her craft and auditioned for commercials, movies and television roles, undeterred if she didn’t land the job."

    2. Robbins, Caryn (2015-12-11). "Olivia Sanabia to Star in New Original Amazon Series Just Add Magic". BroadwayWorld. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Multifaceted actress Olivia Sanabia stars as Kelly Quinn in Amazon's new original series JUST ADD MAGIC. The anticipated series premieres January 15, 2016. ... On the big screen, Olivia is set to star in Day Six and The Secret Life of Me both coming out in 2016. Notable credits include Life in Pieces, The Birthday Boys, Nickelodeon's Sam & Cat, and Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn."

    3. Christi, A.A. (2022-11-11). "Laguna Playhouse & Lythgoe Family Panto Announce Full Casting for the Wonderful Winter of Oz - A Holiday Panto". BroadwayWorld. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Olivia Sanabia (Dorothy) is a 19 year-old, multi-hyphenate actress and singer. She is most well-known for her starring role as "Kelly Quinn" in Amazon's "Just Add Magic." She began acting at the age of 7 in musical theater and commercials. She then appeared on shows such as "This Is Us"," Sam & Cat," "Colin in Black & White," "Extant," and "Life in Pieces," among others. She recently starred in Disney Channel's "Coop and Cami Ask the World." Sanabia's love for singing, songwriting, and playing instruments is evident in her original music. Her recent singles include "Evergreen", "The Train", and "Stars Crossed". She can be seen in Netflix's upcoming spinoff "That 90's Show.""

    4. Hammer, Katherine (2020-11-15). "Exclusive! Olivia Sanabia's latest single is a love note to anyone who's ever felt different". Girls' Life. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Olivia Sanabia knows what it's like to feel different—and that's what her newest original song, "The Train," is *all* about. "The song is kind of a personal journal entry, a peek inside my mind," the Coop & Cami Ask the World star shares with Girls' Life."

    5. Potter, Logan (2018-10-12). "Olivia Sanabia dishes deets on Disney Channel's newest show". Girls' Life. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "After tons of commercials, guest-starring roles on Sam and Cat and Incredible Crew and a starring role on Just Add Magic, the ever-so-talented Olivia Sanabia is back! Tonight, she'll grace our screens on the series premiere of Coop & Cami Ask the World."

    6. Petski, Denise (2022-01-27). "'Just Add Magic' & 'Coop And Cami Ask The World' Alumna Olivia Sanabia Signs With Stagecoach Entertainment". Deadline. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Olivia Sanabia, known for her breakout role as Kelly Quinn in Amazon’s live-action series Just Add Magic, has signed with Stagecoach Entertainment for management. Sanabia starred on all three seasons of the hit Amazon series Just Add Magic, and also starred as Charlotte Wrather in Coop and Cami Ask The World, which aired for two seasons on Disney Channel."

    7. Emery, Debbie (2019-12-13). "'Snow White Christmas' Star Olivia Sanabia Explains Panto: 'Boo for the Bad Guys, Cheer for the Good'". TheWrap. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "... Disney Channel star Olivia Sanabia, who plays the title role of Snow White, explains ... The 16-year-old “Coop & Cami Ask the World” actress admitted that she is also a little nervous about the open forum-style theater that dates back to 16th century Britain. ... Along with her acting credits that include Amazon’s “Just Add Magic,” Sanabia released her debut single “Stars Crossed,” last month, which she says was “deeply inspired by my love of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ — it’s an alternate take on the timeless classic.” Currently playing the dream role of her favorite princess, Snow White, her next bucket list role is to play Shakespeare’s famous female protagonist, Juliet Capulet."

    8. Schulte, Stephanie (2016-06-12). "TV: Magic happens for local actress". The Press-Enterprise. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Corona-based actress Olivia Sanabia a will be reprising her role as spirited Kelly Quinn in the Amazon series “Just Add Magic,” based on the book by Cindy Callaghan. ... Sanabia, now 13, knew at a young age she wanted to become an actress. ... During a January interview, Shannon Sanabia recalled her daughter as a toddler grabbing a turkey baster and singing her heart out."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Olivia Sanabia to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 07:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 ( talk) 15:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

University Scholars

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

This is a gifted-and-talented programme offered by Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School. I don't think the programme has stand-alone notability; and a redirect to the charter school wouldn't be appropriate because there are many similarly titled initiatives at other institutions. Cheers, gnu 57 15:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Pennsylvania. gnu 57 15:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think the nominator has it right. Searching for potential sources finds unusable web churn, the occasional passing mention of the program in a news story about something else [6], and a government document [7]. Nothing is what I'd call suitable. Given these sources, it would be hard to say anything about this program in the article about the school, let alone have an article on the program by itself. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I fully agree with the above. -- Bduke ( talk) 05:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to allow @ Kingsif: and the editor they identified time to sort out the athlete from the French officer. Star Mississippi 01:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Armand Viguier

Armand Viguier (  | talk | history | 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:NOLYMPICS and a WP:BEFORE gave not much more. A French general military officer with the same name seems to exist Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 22:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • For the record, I am continuing to search to check on the relation, there's enough military info it should be possible to determine. But the book author would appear to be the fencer, surely, which is likely grounds for a keep anyway. Kingsif ( talk) 23:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Update: French Wikipedia has an article on the most famous soldier of the name, a highly-decorated pilot in both World Wars. I don't think someone born in 1893 (as the pilot was) is going to be a fencing master in 1900; I also don't think they're going to be a military master-of-arms in 1910, either. The Toulouse military and fencing Armand Viguier is not going to be the decorated pilot Armand Viguier, I'll separate the sources by year. Kingsif ( talk) 23:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per Kingsif. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 23:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I don't find the general anymore, (sorry for the confusion, struck the general and adapted to military officer). But the two I found are apparently two different people. While the fencer on wikipedia died in the 1930s, the officer without a wikipedia article died in 1985. My officer would have quite a published bio though, which you can see here. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 23:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply
      That looks like the pilot. I'll use that bio to exclude the sources on him from what I'm trying to gather, thanks. Kingsif ( talk) 00:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Neither military generals nor published authors are any more automatically notable than Olympians, and we still need qualifying sources to demonstrate notability. It should also be noted that there is a WWI fighter pilot of the same name: fr:Armand Viguier. Thanks. wjemather please leave a message... 23:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • More an assumption that if you were important enough in the sport to write about it a century ago, you'd be passing GNG nowadays. But honestly, the pilot (easier to separate sources as aviation and infantry are fairly distinct) is less of an issue in determining which sources are about the fencer/master-of-arms than Sartre having a character of the same name (in The Reprieve) that people won't stop critically analysing is. Kingsif ( talk) 23:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • If we put assumptions and assertions to one side, what sources do we have about this particular individual? wjemather please leave a message... 23:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'll be honest, the sources for this AfD are not my priority, and having to exclude is making it worse. I have an advantage with the other French fencer in an identity crisis just because I know about the Olympic movement guy. But even that's not my priority. I may suggest a wait, extending the time on this to gather sources while we (I?) clarify. Kingsif ( talk) 00:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given ongoing research
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment As an update: the difficulty of differentiating in looking up these individuals (when there are clearly multiple) has made me feel that either draftifying for a longer process is needed (are either notable when separated is a big question) or someone more expert to do it. I have reached out to someone, but I think this should be over sooner rather than later. Kingsif ( talk) 20:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Arab Media Watch

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

Pretty much zilch sourcing or sign of significant coverage in independent reliable media sources. Seems to pretty obviously fail WP:CORP. Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:14, 26 April 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 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - whilst there are mentions, even in academic journals, of this organisation I am not seeing the comprehensiveness needed to meet the GNG. There are a fair number of bits and pieces about Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi so maybe a section on that page should be fleshed out a bit and possibly have a redirect. JMWt ( talk) 19:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Isle of Wight NHS Trust. Randykitty ( talk) 09:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Isle of Wight Primary Care Trust

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

Low-content article, no references, not much value, defunct organisation with no notable history to keep Elshad ( talk) 13:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 17:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

PerdutaMente

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

New article that fails Google test. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Disability, and Italy. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. "Failing Google test"??? Perhaps try changing your navigator settings then... Article improved (with some sources) since this discussion started. And indeed many sources exist (including, it's true, various interviews with the director but I assume it is because it's a documentary dealing with a rather particular topic; but one, which is on the page, is in La Repubblica). Anyway, a brief Google search gives (and these are not interviews): this in La Stampa, and this, and this and this and this...— MY, OH, MY! 09:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Mushy Yank Unfortunately, I don't know how to change my "navigator settings." I'm not even sure if they exist. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 17:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ I dream of horses They do exist (but maybe you were joking, in which case, sorry because I am afraid I was deadly serious). Maybe the fact that sources did not show up on the first page (?) of your search was only a matter of typing +"film" in the automated search ’Perdutamente’ "-wikipedia", because the title alone of this film is obviously also a common adverb in Italian. But, anyway, now that you do have a few sources attesting the notability of this film that are presented to you, would you consider withdrawing your deletion proposal? .— MY, OH, MY! 19:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Mushy Yank I'm not joking. I just misunderstood your term of "navigator settings." Since there's no harm done in having someone else fluent in Italian to evaluate those sources you added, I'm not withdrawing the nomination. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    OK, thank you for your replies. Just for the record, I did not add anything on the page, that was someone else, the page creator, I think; I only presented the links to 5-6 sources here. But maybe that was clear. Best,.— MY, OH, MY! 19:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I added a La Stampa reference to the article. The Sky references are not actually independent. There are undoubtedly other Italian sources but so many are behind paywalls. Lamona ( talk) 03:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours

AfDs for this article:
List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours (  | talk | history | 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 may very well be unverifiable, especially the " Top videos" (videos that are not film trailers or music videos) section.

The " Top videos" section has very imprecise-looking figures that look like estimates, such as 400.0, 200.0 and 100.0. It also has notes that say:

"Reached 158 million views in three hours"

"Reached 100 million views within the first hour"

"Reached 100 million views within the first four hours"

which means they probably got more views in the first 24 hours than what is listed, and that this is not an accurate ordered list, yet are still listed as number 4, number 6 and number 7 respectively. There's also no explanation of where the sources got those figures from; they could be making them up!

There's also the problem that there are too many websites to collect view data from. One would have to combine views from not only YouTube, but literally every other website on the entire internet, which makes this article impossible to verify.

There might also be an apples-to-oranges situation going on here. A "view" on YouTube might not be equatable to a "view" on Instagram, for example. The " Top videos" section has an entry from Instagram and an entry from YouTube, but on YouTube you would have to go to the video's own unique page to view it, while on Instagram, you might only need to scroll down through a feed with many other posts, and thus inadvertently view the video in question. If this is true, the view counts cannot be compared in this way.

If action is to be taken on this article, I would suggest removing the " Top videos" section and keeping the " Top music videos" and " Top trailers" sections. 123957a ( talk) 08:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. with alternative action: unmerge trailers and change to YouTube videos in 24 hours. I generally agree with the sentiment, but have an alternative proposal: split into two articles: 1. List of most-viewed YouTube videos in the first 24 hours and 2. List of most viewed trailers in the first 24 hours. Trailers were previously a separate article that was merged in, and "total views in the first 24 hours" is a commonly reported metric for trailers. On the other hand, a "top music videos" article will suffer from the same apple-to-oranges problem mentioned. Considering the music videos are all on YouTube, I believe it makes sense to have top YouTube videos in 24 hours rather than top Music videos. (This also seems reasonable considering that there is a List of most-viewed YouTube videos article but no "most viewed online videos article".) Yannn 11 18:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Splitting would require overturning the AFD that caused them to get merged in the first place. Primefac ( talk) 18:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Can that merge be overturned in this discussion? I don't have a strong opinion on the trailers. Having one page for something like "most viewed music videos and trailers in 24 hours" seems awkward, however. Yannn 11 18:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This appears to be a proposal to remove the "Top videos" section and leave the rest of the article alone. I am not sure why this is an AfD discussion. In any case, I support the removal of that section, in addition to a possible rename. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I tried to keep other possibilities open as well. 123957a ( talk) 23:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'm more on the delete side. Social media platforms count a "view" in differing ways, so that no one view is equal to another. Making apples to oranges comparisons is a violation of WP:SYNTH. SWinxy ( talk) 19:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Purely WP:SYNTH. No objection to creating new articles for the more specific sections (music videos and trailers that have verifiable coverage), but trying to compare views across multiple platforms is impractical and usually WP:OR. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete due to WP:SYNTH problems that I do not think can be overcome. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I have been mulling this eventual AFD pretty much since I started keeping an eye on the page and enacting edit requests after it was protected. While I might not go so far as to say there are SYNTH issues, there are definitely WP:V issues - every value in each of the tables is reliant on the parent company releasing the information, whether that be a Chinese television broadcaster or a video sharing platform. YouTube's own view-counter is notoriously unreliable (we had to practically re-write the entire music video section at one point because YT said "oh by the way our counts are way off, here are the 'fixed' values"). There are also (as mentioned) the multi-platform-view issue, though I am less concerned about that since that metric seems to be used only for trailers and not music vidoes or the generic videos. I do suppose the SYNTH part of the issue is that we rely on secondary sources to notice these videos: it's the quintessential "if a tree falls in the forest" issue - if no one notices a video gets views, how do we record it? For music videos this is less of an issue, but as I noticed with the generic videos section some of the highest values were added years after the event happened. In other words, do we know what we don't know? Primefac ( talk) 09:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I am changing to delete based on the points raised regarding WP:V and WP:SYNTH. To expand on Primefac's point regarding "do we know what we don't know?", I would contend that even a "list of most-viewed YouTube videos in the first 24 hours" would have the same limitation. For example, YouTube hides view counts on Google Doodle YouTube videos, and the Google homepage receives an estimated 40 billion visits per day. [1] Yannn 11 14:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Due to WP:V concerns, based on Pricefac's comment. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://theoutline.com/post/2405/why-is-google-hiding-view-counts-for-google-doodles
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

List of members clubs in London

List of members clubs in London (  | talk | history | 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 page and List of gentlemen's clubs in London are essentially interchangable and thus the one can be deleted and redirected to the other. The information is in a slightly different format but I don't think there's much which is left to merge or would be lost with a redirect.

I'm nominating this page because it has an orphan hat whereas the other is arguably better linked and integrated. However I think there's an argument to say that the candidate for deletion should be List of gentlemen's clubs in London on the basis that there are clubs in London of this type which, strictly speaking are not and never have been for gentlemen such as the University Women's Club - but that doesn't seem to currently matter as it appears in both pages! JMWt ( talk) 11:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While certainly the count is heavily towards "keep", I am not finding a strong, unchallenged argument to do so. There is disagreement regarding the strength and depth of available coverage, therefore I find no consensus to this discussion. Before renomination, it would be recommended to look closely at each source listed to see if an encyclopedic-ally useful article can be built upon them. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Hieronymus Schlick

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

Notability. Czech WP, while slightly longer, cites one genealogy source and nothing else. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 08:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 08:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Czech Republic. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • It'd be reasonable to redirect this to Thaler#Joachimsthaler since there is no useful information in the article itself. There is a very little about Hieronymus (presumably II) here: [8] but it's trivial stuff about minor local administration. Elemimele ( talk) 14:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Support redirect per Elemimele. Sounds like this guy is just one from a rich family who did the same thing, which could be a better topic for an article (though isn't yet). Jdcooper ( talk) 20:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Corresponded with Luther ( [9]) and treated by Agricola ( [10]). Expandable. Srnec ( talk) 01:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't normally come back to deletion discussions, but accidentally did to this. I think it's going to be quite difficult to write a convincing article based on a passing reference (less than one sentence, mentioning that he and his brother received a letter from Luther and possibly reacted by issuing an opposition to Anabaptists), and a single mention of his name, identified as the brother of someone else, in an article about someone quite different (Georgius Agricola). Luther wrote to quite a lot of people. A five-volume set of his letters amounting to more than 2400 pages is described as "a selection of" his correspondence, so the letter is not a great surprise; was there any further correspondence between them? Did he influence Luther's views? He was a regional ruler; the big question is whether anyone has actually written a decent history of him, or at least included more than passing references to him in a history of something else? I'd love it if someone has. I did try to think of a way to add Smec's refs into the article, but it's quite hard to do it without it sounding like a bit of trivia. Elemimele ( talk) 11:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well said. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 23:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Srnec. Appears to be reasonably notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep -- Unfortunately I do not know Czech, but the Czech WP article on him is slightly longer and it clearly considers him notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can you at least read an automatically translated version of it before you decide what it says? RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 19:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    It doesn’t appear to consider him very notable, by the way. Just a more detailed genealogical/biographical sketch than ours, citing only one source (a genealogy site). RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 19:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - an important personality of the Czech history, as suggests this source - publication of the National Museum of the Czech Republic. Contains a lot of other sources. Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 07:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't know Czech so I'm relying mostly on autotranslation and would appreciate correction, but does the word wikipedii translate as anything other than "Wikipedia?" If not, the information on Hieronymus Schlick here seems to be A) purely genealogical, B) a passing mention, and C) citied to Wikipedia. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 00:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the proposed reference material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Thaler#Joachimsthaler Delete. The sources Srnec provided seem reliable but have little more than a passing mention of Hieronymus. The source Vejvančický provided also is only a passing mention, and appears to cite Wikipedia. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 01:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Changing to delete; the proposed redirect doesn't seem have any information on the individual in question at all. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 01:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The History of Money has 3 paragraphs on the subject. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 18:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC) The Encyclopedia of Money has 2 paragraphs. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 09:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Worth noting that most of the word count of those three paragraphs consists of narrative fluff. The facts in there could be summarized much more succinctly. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 19:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This historical figure carries significant importance in the context of the origin of the dollar and possesses a captivating narrative. Holding the prestigious title of count within an absolute monarchy, he can be acknowledged as a member of the royal court. Moreover, their story finds extensive documentation in various national historical papers and has been subject to scholarly discussions among historians. Given these factors, it becomes apparent that this individual holds a notable status and merits recognition for their contributions and profound impact on history. So look notable to me. Being a stub article is not a reason for deletion. 1.47.196.154 ( talk) 23:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can you please link to “various national historical papers”, then? RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 04:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close‎. Article has been moved to draft space by author. If the draft meets WP:DELREASON then the correct venue is WP:MFD. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Kayes Arju

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:NACTOR fails WP:NSINGER 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note that the creating editor has moved this unilaterally back to Draft space and removed the AfD notice immediately post nomination. I'll leave others to judge the validity of this set of operations. I am not minded to withdraw the nomination. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 02:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Wellington Carvalho

Wellington Carvalho (  | talk | history | 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 tagged this article with a BLP PROD since as of this nomination it has zero references. @ Simione001 asked that this be moved to AfD so here we are. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if the article is improved to include at least two sources. Normally this kind of behavior at AfD isn't appropriate. We never hold articles hostage to improve them. But when it comes to living people we have a higher standard which includes citing sources for out claims. That's a really easy standard to pass and it matters. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 09:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Christine M. Rose

AfDs for this article:
Christine M. Rose (  | talk | history | 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 considering mainly weak sourcing, still reads as WP:RESUME, and the only point that's debatable per WP:AUTHOR is that their work has won significant critical attention via invitations to Cons. I don't believe that meets the criteria.

Noting SPA page creator. 30Four ( talk) 09:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Old SPA-created article that is basically a CV. There is no credible claim to notability (eg being lauded at conventions) and sources are almost all ephemeral, obscure, or the subject's own webpages. Rowan of the Wood is held by a paltry 24 institutions (WorldCat). These are the sorts of articles that make WP look like a directory. 128.252.154.3 ( talk) 15:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Rose appears to have won an award, but it does not appear to be significant. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 12:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Procedural close‎. Withdrawn by nominator, as noted below. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Rugg v Ryan

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

Withdrawn by nominator. Article to be merged instead of deleted. Jack4576 ( talk) 10:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This page is for a proposed litigation that was settled before it arose, and so refers to a court case that does not exist. Due to its settlement, the outcome of the court case was legally insignificant, and the case itself is not notable as a separate entry per se. I propose that content of this entry be deleted and reworked into the Wiki pages for Ryan & Rugg as persons; perhaps as a paragraph remarking that they litigated against each other. Jack4576 ( talk) 07:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree. Starting a 2nd AfD so soon after is only really acceptable if it was closed as 'no consensus' due to lack of participation. If the close was unacceptable then contest it at User talk:Guerillero, the admin that closed it. If not happy with their response then take it to WP:DRV. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I'd urge you to assume good faith LibStar.
The AfD was a week ago, but situation has changed two days ago.
This is because since the last AfD, the case was settled. See: here, and here.
Hence the nomination now. The arguments for keep under the previous AfD no longer hold. Jack4576 ( talk) 09:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
To be clear, the previous close was acceptable; it was a good decision based on what we knew at the time.
Hence it seemed more appropriate for a new AfD on new facts; rather than re-opening the old one.
Thanks Spiderone. Jack4576 ( talk) 09:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Replying to LibStar's comment: "once notable always notable" - this case never happened. The subject does not exist. It was a prospective litigation that settled.
Before it settled it was prospectively notable as a legally significant employment law case. There is no prospect of that now, hence no notability.
re: 'Nominations of this kind undermine the Wikipedia project as a whole'; obviously when I made that comment, I was not referring to nominations of this kind. I would implore you LibStar to avoid randomly quoting out-of-context sentences from my other AfD threads like this. Its not constructive.
Besides, I am proposing to Merge, not delete. Jack4576 ( talk) 09:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Re: "The last AfD was only closed a week ago"
As I've stated above, the AfD was a week ago, but situation changed two days ago.
This is because since the last AfD, the case was settled. See: here, and here.
Jack4576 ( talk) 09:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
If you are proposing to merge, please do not waste the community's time with this deletion discussion. Nominations of this kind undermine the Wikipedia project as a whole. Please follow the instructions at WP:MERGEPROP. This AfD should be closed as a procedural keep, as even you as a nominator are not even seeking deletion. LibStar ( talk) 10:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Geez. Tone. Sure, happy to close as procedural keep and merge. Jack4576 ( talk) 10:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The initial deletion discussion and this discussion could have all been avoided if a certain overzealous editor wasn't so keen to create an article for purely political purposes (after previous politically biased edits were rejected by 3rd opinion on another page) on a case where a trial hadn't even started.
The potential for this to fizzle into nothing was quite high and if the 'disagreement' wasn't notable enough for its own article now (which it isn't), then it never truly was.
I hope all involved learn a valuable lesson from this, particularly the creator of this article. Simba1409 ( talk) 12:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Demetris Spyridakis

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

Footballer who fails GNG and SPORTSBASIC. No appearances in senior fully-pro leagues, no GNG-satisfying media coverage. BlameRuiner ( talk) 06:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

weak keep: 2nd reference appears to be an independent reliable source. He appears has been signed as a player within the highest division of that country's national league, I think this lends weight to notability. As Spiderone has pointed out the sole source appears to draw from information that is self-published and neither reliable nor independent. Delete. Jack4576 ( talk) 06:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
FYI Wikipedia needs 2 reliable independent sources under WP:SIGCOV to be notable. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
That isn't a strict requirement under SIGCOV Jack4576 ( talk) 08:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Also, the second source is probably too small to be compliant with the "significant" part of SIGCOV. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
It's two sentences in length so definitely doesn't meet the 'significant' requirement of WP:GNG. It does then link to a Facebook page which is self-published and neither reliable nor independent. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www-omonoiafc-com-cy.translate.goog/%cf%85%cf%80%ce%ad%ce%b3%cf%81%ce%b1%cf%88%ce%b5-%ce%b5%cf%80%ce%b1%ce%b3%ce%b3%ce%b5%ce%bb%ce%bc%ce%b1%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%ba%cf%8c-%cf%83%cf%85%ce%bc%ce%b2%cf%8c%ce%bb%ce%b1%ce%b9%ce%bf-%ce%bf-%ce%b4/?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp No His employer No No Press release about signing a contract ✘ No
https://www.24sports.com.cy/gr/sports/podosfairo/kypros/b-katigoria/meap/meap-meta-ton-asimeno%E2%80%A6-firmani-kai-gia-spyridaki Yes Yes No Has 2 sentences of prose altogether ✘ No
https://www.alphanews.live/sports/epaggelmatiko-symbolaio-me-tin-omonoia-o-dimitris-spyridakis No Mostly a copy of the press release in #1 Yes No As per #1 ✘ No
https://www-kerkida-net.translate.goog/eidiseis/a-katigoria/omonoia/ypegrapse-epaggelmatiko-symbolaio-o-dimitris-spyridakis?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp No As above Yes No As above ✘ No
https://goal.philenews.com/podosfero/kypros/a-katigoria/omonoia/omonoia-ypografes-symvolaion-kai-diloseis-apo-ton-spyridaki/ Yes Yes No One sentence of prose then a link to video published by his employer ✘ No
https://themasports.tothemaonline.com/Article/796437/spyridakhs---o-mpomper-ths-omonoias-k-19-gia-ton-titlo-kai-ta-gkol-toy Yes Yes No Quote pulled apparently from Omonia's website with zero third party analysis ✘ No
https://www-kerkida-net.translate.goog/articles/akadimies/798765-niki-me-spyridaki?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www-omonoiafc-com-cy.translate.goog/%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B4%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CE%B3%CE%BD%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B6%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BC%CE%B5-%CE%BC%CE%B5-%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BD-%CE%B4%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%AE%CF%84%CF%81%CE%B7-%CF%83%CF%80/?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp No Q&A from his employer published on employer's website No No Zero third party analysis ✘ 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}}.
Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Nikolas Kyriakides

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

Footballer who fails GNG and SPORTSBASIC BlameRuiner ( talk) 06:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

weak keep: He appears has been signed as a player within the highest division of that Cyprus' national league, I think this lends weight to notability. Jack4576 ( talk) 06:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
It doesn't lend weight, I'm afraid. Only meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC does. In fact, even before WP:NSPORTS2022, signing a professional contract wouldn't be sufficient on its own. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
GNG only establishes a presumption; its absence does not prove a subject is not notable
In my view for the reasons stated earlier the subject is prominent enough to be nevertheless notable
Hence week keep Jack4576 ( talk) 10:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article isn't notable; a defender in a country as small as Cyprus is unlikely to have any sources, and I couldn't find any, even in Greek. Although there doesn't seem to be any specific guidelines for football, it definitely fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Hasn't even played a top level match. Reconsider when he actually establishes a career. No sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 07:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my source analysis. In summary, the coverage found is all just copied directly from a press release from his employer or a quote with no analysis from a third party. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www-omonoiafc-com-cy.translate.goog/%cf%85%cf%80%ce%ad%ce%b3%cf%81%ce%b1%cf%88%ce%b5-%ce%b5%cf%80%ce%b1%ce%b3%ce%b3%ce%b5%ce%bb%ce%bc%ce%b1%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%ba%cf%8c-%cf%83%cf%85%ce%bc%ce%b2%cf%8c%ce%bb%ce%b1%ce%b9%ce%bf-%ce%bf-%ce%bd/?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp No His employer No No Press release about signing a contract ✘ No
https://www.alphanews.live/sports/epaggelmatiko-symbolaio-ston-nikola-kyriakidi-apo-tin-omonoia No Almost entirely copied from press release above Yes No Press release about signing a contract ✘ No
https://balla.com.cy/2022/05/27/epaggelmatias-kai-o-nikolas-kyriakidis-fotos/ No As above Yes No As above ✘ No
https://goal.philenews.com/podosfero/kypros/a-katigoria/omonoia/omonoia-edese-kai-ton-nikola-kyriakidi/ No As above Yes No As above ✘ No
https://www.kerkida.net/eidiseis/a-katigoria/omonoia/epaggelmatias-stin-omonoia-o-nikolas-tha-toys-apodeixo-pos-axize-ton-kopo Yes Yes No Very little prose and then has a link to a video made by his employer ✘ No
https://www-kerkida-net.translate.goog/eidiseis/alles-stiles/akadimies/omonoia/o-nikolas-kyriakidis-sholiazei-tis-proponiseis-tis-u19?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp Yes Yes No Quote from him with no analysis ✘ 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}}.
Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 ( talk) 04:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Udini Square

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

Last AfD was 5 years ago, however I'm not convinced this shopping centre meets GNG. The Malay version of this article is poorly sourced. A look at the existing sources:

  • 1. a routine announcement about how much of the centre is leased.
  • 2. a dead link
  • 3. and 6. routine announcements about a store opening
  • 4. dead link
  • 5. appears to be a developer's website, doesn't link specifically to info on this shopping centre.
  • 7. and 8. public transport information

LibStar ( talk) 01:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: WP:SIGCOV is not a requirement for assessing notability; it is just one factor in a general process that requires careful judgement. The size and location of this shopping centre, which appears to be established by the sources, suggests that this mall is a notable entity in its local area, and to enough people generally to make it worthy for inclusion. Jack4576 ( talk) 06:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
"The size and location of this shopping centre" are not criteria for notability. Nor it being "notable entity in its local area". It must meet GNG. LibStar ( talk) 06:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
We are looking for GNG evidence that the shopping centre is a notable entity.
The sources, that show the centre is likely (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area; all suggest to me that this article merits its own article.
The issues with the references are not so defective as to prevent one from establishing the above. GNG is met. Jack4576 ( talk) 07:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
" (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area" Again, please point to the notability guideline which gives shopping centres notability on the basis of these criteria you name. LibStar ( talk) 07:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
GNG satisfaction gives rise to a presumption that a subject is notable.
It is not a requirement that subjects pass GNG to be assessed as notable.
The real-world features of this subject are strong reasons, that in the real world, to real people, this subject is notable, and thus it would be to Wikipedia's benefit to retain this entry. Jack4576 ( talk) 08:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
"The real-world features of this subject are strong reasons, that in the real world, to real people". Again you are inventing your own criteria for shopping centres. LibStar ( talk) 08:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I am not appealing to GNG criteria, I am appealing to the meaning of notability in the colloquial sense.
As I have stated earlier, independent of the GNG guidelines (which I note, establish a presumption and are not determinative of the notability issue per se); I think there are reasons this subject are notable.
I think the observation that notability is established by:
(1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area
is inutitive, and grounded in common sense Jack4576 ( talk) 10:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
What you consider "grounded in common sense" may not align with meeting notability in Wikipedia. You are welcome to start your own online encyclopedia based on your "intuition". You could then include all shopping centres that are (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area. LibStar ( talk) 10:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Also I am curious to know what are your intuitive thresholds for large by floor space area, and how many visitors makes a large number. LibStar ( talk) 10:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I have provided reasons for my notability assessment, free to disagree with them.
I do think those reasons align with the Wikipedia threshold for notability. I think its fairly arguable that this an important centre for a large number of people, based on my reasons provided above, based on the geography, building size, and the photographs and images that show the centre's size and location. (None of which are issues that are in dispute).
Given the above tends towards the view that Udini Square is a keep, it would seem to me it is entirely unnecessary to start another encyclopedia. The guidelines for this one are fine as it is, usually.
I have contributed my views, and my reasons, and my opinion remains keep is appropriate. Feel free to engage and provide counterarguments if you wish; but maybe it would be best to invite other editors in an RfC if consensus cannot be reached here. Jack4576 ( talk) 15:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
RfC's are for content disputes, not deletion discussions, which are supposed to be here. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Jack4576: This is the first time I've heard this. You need to make it clear why you think this article should stay on Wikipedia, and article need to meet SIGCOV as a requirement to be on Wikipedia, which this one definitely does not. To be clear, my vote is Delete unless someone can find sources or restore the dead links. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
SIGCOV creates a presumption that a subject is notable
Subjects are still capable of being notable without SIGCOV. With respect, I think you need to re-read GNG more closely. Jack4576 ( talk) 07:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Subjects are still capable of being notable without SIGCOV', only true if it meets one of the accepted notability guidelines like WP:NPOL for politicians , WP:NACTOR for actors etc. There isn't a shopping centre notability guideline that gives notability for " (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area". LibStar ( talk) 07:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Untrue. You are confusing guidelines that give rise to a presumption; they are not a requirement. This goes for all of the policies you have cited.
I accept that this shopping centre doesn't meet the guidelines so as to give rise to a presumption. Nevertheless, I think taking a step back, the evidence we have available to form a view as to what this shopping centre is; tends toward a conclusion that it is notable enough that it would be to Wikipedia's benefit to retain this entry. Jack4576 ( talk) 08:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
You still haven't demonstrated how it meets GNG? Did you actually search for sources? Or WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar ( talk) 08:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I am clearly providing reasons, and so my argument is not WP:ITSNOTABLE
My reason is grounded in an empathy for the persons in this local area, coupled with an intuitive judgement as to what would be notable to people and what people would reasonably expect to be in an encyclopedia.
GNG establishes a presumption that an article is notable. it is not a requirement for notability; and as I have stated above, this subject has multiple inherent characteristics that I think warrant its inclusion for notability. Feel free to disagree. Jack4576 ( talk) 09:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
But we're talking about how this article fails GNG, not about the presumption of notability? This argument makes no sense, nor does the "empathy" for people in the area, because this is a notability discussion and not about the local community, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the fact this article receives just 9 average page views daily, most of which are probably editors. Your arguments, here and on other discussion, devolve into WP:POINT votes, including on an RfA (which you, thankfully, withdrew after extensive discussion), and numerous WP:ITSNOTABLE votes. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Some of the dead link sources have been updated with archived links, and they seem to also be routine announcements of store openings. Searches of the term did not returned with sufficient coverage, and searches in Malay and Chinese only yielded trivial mentions as well. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 23:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV. We don't have articles with tons of openings and new shoppes, interviews of the hopes and dreams of 100 shopkeepers, and the like. That's not significant coverage about the mall, and of them that are in local news or tourist authority press releases. Penang is notable, and a lovely city (I've been there, and it's one of my favorite places in the world; my alternate executor's husband was born there), but I don't see how this is any way notable. Routine coverage of businesses do not pass WP:NCORP. A southeast Asian market can be notable (see, e.g., Carbon Market), but it has to be shown to be notable. Bearian ( talk) 16:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per nom source eval, and Tutwakhamoe and Bearian. The keep vote above seem to be explaining why the subject doesn't really need to meet GNG, rather that providing sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and and indepth, and showing the subject does meet GNG.  //  Timothy ::  talk  06:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Totally agree. The keep voter has made zero effort to demonstrate existence of sources to meet GNG. Or maybe he has searched and found nothing. All he has done is invent his own criteria for notable shopping centres. LibStar ( talk) 06:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – non-SIGCOV and ROUTINE-ish sources can't prove notability. I can't seem to find any sources that significantly cover the subject online either. Nythar ( 💬- 🍀) 17:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Soundhog

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. This piece in North Wales Live is the only piece of non-SPS coverage I can find and does not demonstrate notability. An AfD in 2004 demonstrated a consensus to delete (IMO) but was never closed. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: I found this piece also, but it doesn't look altogether independent and notability doesn't appear established Jack4576 ( talk) 06:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails BLP, GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE are promotional. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  //  Timothy ::  talk  23:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 06:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Alisa Khachatryan

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

Footballer who fails GNG and SPORTSBASIC. No evidence of national team debut, despite multiple bench appearances. No GNG-level coverage. BlameRuiner ( talk) 06:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak delete: I'm unsure whether a football player needs to have actually have debuted for the national team to be notable. Surely having been signed is enough. In any event, there aren't enough sources here to establish much. Jack4576 ( talk) 07:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Madison Jeffries

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

This article is sourced entirely from the pages of comic books, i.e. primary sources. No showing of real-world notability. Reads like a fanpage. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 06:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep: sources appear to be reliable, and primary sources are fine to use; at least within reason and to not make inappropriate claims. Given that this is a fictional character the use of primary sources to make claims about the entry for the most part seems fine. The fact that the primary sources are comic book pages is absolutely no problem. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD Regardless, the Marvel official handbook counts as a secondary source on the character and is cited. Notability is demonstrated by the character's prominence in an extremely notable form of American media. (i.e. marvel comics) Character is also created by a notable author, and appeared in multiple stories. I think this is sufficient to cross the notability threshold. Issues with style can be addressed through edits or article's talk page. Jack4576 ( talk) 07:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Primary sources can be used in articles, but WP:SIGCOV makes it very clear that at least two sources have to be "independent of the subject" to quality for notability, which this clearly isn't, nor is there any online. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Where are you getting the 'at least two' from? Can't see that requirement under WP:SIGCOV. The singular secondary source, paired with the numerous primary sources suggest to me that its more likely than not that this subject is notable Jack4576 ( talk) 07:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Since the guideline uses plural sources, "at least two" is the most mimimalistic interpretation of "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources". Sources, not source. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
"multiple sources are generally expected", is the guideline, not "multiple sources are required" Jack4576 ( talk) 10:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Genuine Question - how can a Marvel handbook be a secondary source? It's an additional fiction created by the same company that created the comics, it just has a different format. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 06:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The handbook documents and describes a fictional subject, but is not itself an instance of the fictional subject. Hence secondary. Marvel being the publisher for both doesn't matter. (I note the authors for both texts are different anyway) Jack4576 ( talk) 13:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
That's crazy. Unless they've changed drastically since I last picked one up, they're written in-universe and often add extra fictional information (e.g. abilities never seen in comics, such as strength levels, or retcons like labelling Iron Man's armours). Marvel being the publisher for both really should matter as everything ultimately comes under the same editorial vetting; they're no more (or less) valid than a profile printed in a comic itself. Same goes for any of the heavily-vetted Official DK books and the like because it's all fiction licenced by the publisher and a primary source. A useful primary source, but a primary source nonetheless. It's no more valid in a sense of third-party notability than a YouTuber making a guide about themselves; they are not independent or objective. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 16:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle ( talk) 10:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

List of tallest buildings in Haaglanden

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

PROD rationale: Per a comment from RJP98 on the talk page from March 2021: "Firstly, "Haaglanden" does not officially exist as an urban area anymore (only as a safety region, which doesn't mean much). Secondly, Haaglanden was never known for its eccentrically tall buildings in the first place. It also lists only one source, which is quite dated (2014)." I can't find any fault with this argument, nor any sourcing indicating this list meets WP:NLIST/WP:GNG.

De-PROD'd with edit summary: could be recast as List of tallest buildings in The Hague

Not a finger has been lifted to actually attempt to do so, of course, and that's notwithstanding the GNG/NLIST issue requiring SIGCOV of the topic as a whole. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Doncram ( talk, contribs) 15:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Meets CLN/AOAL.  //  Timothy ::  talk  06:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 06:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Matt Dunnerstick

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

Clear WP:GNG fail. Was already deleted by a unanimous delete decision in 2011. No theoretical objection to a redirect to his sole film, only a practical concern: this film's entry was also deleted in 2011 and was also recreated over our community decision two years later. If Matt Dunnerstick is deleted again, please also salt. gidonb ( talk) 05:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 09:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Chandan Madan

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

Chandan Madan

Stub biography of cricketer who does not satisfy cricket notability or general notability. There is nothing in this stub that describes significant coverage in a reliable source. The only reference is to a database source, and does not provide secondary coverage. The Heymann criterion is to find two reliable sources that provide secondary coverage within seven days. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • The external links immediately leads me to this article and this one which would seem to fulfil the Heymann criteria immediately, yes? Perhaps the nom may wish to review these and consider whether they're sufficient or whether we have to drag this out for a week? Blue Square Thing ( talk) 05:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep on the basis of the links provided by Blue Square Thing. Appears to be a notable cricketer, evidence shows that they have played at the highest domestic levels. Playing for U19 indian team particularly persuasive as to notability. Jack4576 ( talk) 08:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per BST. Him playing for India Under-19s actually doesn't make him notable, had he solely played for them he would fail WP:NCRIC. Having played for senior domestic teams in India, and with the sources BST has found, he meets the inclusion criteria and GNG. StickyWicket ( talk) 17:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep From what we've got here, and the career he's had, I believe it likely that there would be enough in offline/non-English language sources for the article to be kept, albeit only just. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 19:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn‎. ✗ plicit 03:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The Gift (2007 TV program)

The Gift (2007 TV 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)

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing reliable found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2018.

PROD removed because it "may" meet WP:NTV, which is an essay not a policy or guideline. It did air 2 seasons, but I found nothing substantial for either season that would pass even WP:GNG. Sending it here for others to weigh in. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Two seasons on Channel 9 at 9pm I think is sufficiently high profile that this subject is likely notable. Issue to me is the lack of references establishing those facts. In the absence of references my view is delete Jack4576 ( talk) 08:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I found a possible reference: https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/t/the-gift-series/25904 Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page) 09:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Viral Hog

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

Unable to find any coverage that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH KH-1 ( talk) 03:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Maureen Sander-Staudt

Maureen Sander-Staudt (  | talk | history | 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 academic. No significant coverage, fails WP:NACADEMIC Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 01:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

There are three well-cited papers, after that not much. Looks like a WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC). reply
I'd hazard a guess that her field is a low-citation one overall, but even taking that into account, I'm not seeing any indications that she stands out, rather than being an academic doing an academic's job. Philosophical Inquiries into Pregnancy has been reviewed [11] [12] [13], but that was a co-edited anthology. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Nothing to indicate that GNG has been met. The podcast listed above is an interview with Sander-Staudt, so not completely independent. And while she has some widely-cited work, this does not seem to me enough to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. WJ94 ( talk) 16:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It may be useful to have this title or something similar as a redirect for search purposes, but multiple targets were suggested in the discussion with no takers. RL0919 ( talk) 04:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Survivor (American TV series) winners

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

I have wondered whether the creator of this list is aware that I tried a failed attempt to create a draft of a (partial?) finalists list, which was rejected as "too arbitrary". Furthermore, I even asked the one who rejected the draft whether the finalists list's scope should be narrowed to only winners. Unfortunately, I was told that the list already exists at Survivor (American TV series)§Series overview. In other words, implicitly, a separate biographical list of winners isn't needed.

Seems to me this list is a response to recent individual AFD nominations on winners, like Bob Crowley and Natalie White. I can't help wonder whether this list meets WP:SAL and WP:BLP, and I wonder whether WP:BLP1E applies. Preferably, should be either deleted or draft-ified or redirected to the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants or Survivor (American TV series). George Ho ( talk) 01:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC); expanded, 03:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. This does not preclude editorial discretion from being applied to move to draft, or rewrite. Stifle ( talk) 10:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Totalitarian architecture

AfDs for this article:
Totalitarian architecture (  | talk | history | 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 had an AfD nearly two years ago, which was closed with no consensus due to the possibility of there being non- WP:SYNTH information related to the topic. I am here to once again argue that no such information exists, and that this is better off being a redirect to fascist architecture or a disambiguation at most. As it exists, the page basically just argues that "totalitarian architecture" is an architecture that involves big buildings made by "totalitarian" governments. Practically all the sourcing is simply tertiary mentions, with no elaboration on what exactly this field of architecture is supposed to be. After these issues were brought up, the article was subject to a WP:REFBOMB, which did little to prove notability. Given that all the original issues of bad sourcing and synthesis exist, and that attempts in the past two years to prove notability have failed, I'm suggesting a redirect once again. Paragon Deku ( talk) 01:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to fascist architecture per comments in the previous AFD: this is a textbook case of original research via synthesis. I have reviewed the edits made in the two years since, and they don't add any new sources that weren't there at the time of the original AFD. I strongly encourage voters to review WP:SYNTH. Suppose someone made an article titled "Aus Architecture" that combined real, referenced facts about architecture of Austria, Australia, and Austin, Texas. You could get 100 references easily, but it's still synthesis: you'd need a source tying these disparate architecture strands together into a single topic. Actually, multiple sources. Architecture of Australia, Architecture of Austria, etc. are valid topics, but this container category is made-up. Well, that's exactly what this article is. Fascist architecture is a valid topic, Stalinist architecture is a valid topic, and this article awkwardly tries to make a joint topic that combines them. "Keep" votes in past AFDs have cited the term coming up in Google Scholar & Google Book searches, but when I actually inspected and read these references two years ago, they were almost always used strictly in the sense of Fascist Architecture, not in the sense of a joint Nazi-Italian Fascist-Soviet combined architecture style. It makes as much sense as democratic architecture or royalist architecture that tries to combine disparate styles that have nothing to do with other via the government involved. Now, per the previous AFD, there is one asterisk I have to point out: we do have one source that actually treats this topic in the way this Wikipedia article does, Igor Golomstock's Totalitarian Art, which does indeed use the term in the sense of a collective art style that stretches across all totalitarian governments, and seems to investigate the idea somewhat. Okay, fine. But... it's one book by one author on a topic where there are tens of thousands of books and tens of thousands of scholars. If Glomstock's book is really felt to be so incredibly relevant, make an article on just his book, first. Wikipedia should use the term the way that 90% of the actual sources use it - as a redirect to fascist architecture, which is really what is being talked about. SnowFire ( talk) 03:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I do not see any valid reason for deletion. This is a well-known and well-sourced subject. This page exists on 7 other languages. This is not a "WP:Coatrack": the concept of totalitarian architecture as a whole appear in currently cited references on the page (for example references #1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 14, 15, 20, 25, 28, 31, 36 and 37). Just having an AfD discussion in a past is not a reason for deletion. No, this article is not a WP:REFBOMB. Why it would be? Yes, Fascist architecture are Stalinist architecture are valid topics and they are also legitimate sub-pages of this page. My very best wishes ( talk) 04:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Per WP:DEL-CONTENT, [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, and per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And, we actually have sources that have discussed this topic, including "Totalitarianism, Architecture and Conscience", "Difficult Heritage: Various Approaches to Twentieth-Century Totalitarian Architecture", "The Constituent Power of Architecture", as well as many, many more articles and books that have been published. This is also not simply equivalent to fascist architecture, as alleged by SnowFire above, as academics point out totalitarian architecture as having been created by Communist governments ( Here's whole article on this very connection). The claim that that no such information exists about a well-documented topic is denialism at worst, and a failure to conduct a WP:BEFORE at best. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
As discussed previously, this would just be refbombing. You can find perfectly similar sources on architecture and black Americans, architecture and democracy, architecture and feminism, etc etc etc. None of these would indicate that such things as Black Architecture, Democratic Architecture, or Feminist architecture actually exist as their own independent disciplines. As with any other art form, architecture is often viewed in the context of its creation (or creators), but that doesn’t mean it can be verified as its own discipline. This is always just a synthesis play that ignores the context of sources and ends up making an incomprehensible slurry of unrelated info. Paragon Deku ( talk) 07:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
This is an argument that the title is wrong, not that there is no notable subject here. Of course Architecture and feminism is a notable topic; so many sources discuss it, and I hope to see that redlink turn to blue. When one encounters an article about the intersection of architecture and feminism, but objects to the title of "feminist architecture", the way to change that is to make a move request, not to try to delete the article for failing to have a perfect title. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Feminism and modern architecture is the page, for the record. And this isn't simply an issue with the title- the entire article as it exists is arguing that a specific architectural style of totalitarian regimes and therefore a school of architecture is extant. If we were to make a page on architecture and totalitarianism, it would have to be an entirely separate page, because the content of the page as it exists is bunk. Paragon Deku ( talk) 02:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - there are many published academic papers and books on this topic, with coverage of socialist and other regimes. Therefore a redirect to Fascist architecture seems like a busted flush and a contradiction in terms. That said the page needs more work and likely considerable cleanup to refocus onto examples of architecture and away from puff (for example quotes from Orwell in his novel don't add anything IMO). As it stands, I think the page would likely be more informative with 90% less text and perhaps splitting up by country. I don't envy those taking on the challenge - which looks difficult to me, but an encyclopedic concept. JMWt ( talk) 05:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC) I am now persuaded by the arguments below (which were eventually written in a way that I could understand) by PaulT2022 that there should be WP:TNT and/or sent to Draft because this is a mess that doesn't properly represent the sources that exist. Which is a shame - I can see there's been quite an effort to get it to this stage. JMWt ( talk) 16:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • WP:TNT My view on this has evolved since the last discussion. The article as it stands is a mess of WP:SYNTH probably due to refbombing during the last AfD and includes many irrelevant sources. There is something icky about the way sources are being used to present this as a settled architectural style and idea when actually most of the academic secondary sources seem to be saying "is this really an architectural style?" (see Hokerberg: Although we must dismiss the idea of specific totalitarian architectural styles...; A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture: Supposedly the officially approved architecture of...; Mijolla-Mellor & Tuncel Et peut-on parler d’une architecture qui portera des éléments stylistiques qu’on pourrait définir en tant que « totalitaires »?) Other academic sources devolve into strange psychogeography which I don't know how to treat (see Barshack Totalitarian architecture does not allow for interpretation as a mode of contemplating the collective body which assumes its distance from the social, a mode of contemplating the dead which presupposes their relegation to a separate realm). I cannot take seriously any opinion that references that bizarre 70s Tony Ward article about American prison architecture (unless they haven't read it which is another reason not to take them seriously).
However, reference works (listed below) do make use of the term totalitarian architecture. The article as it currently stands does not reflect at all how the term is used in sources. So, in true totalitarian style, I propose we completely bulldoze this article and build a grand article in its place.
I think this is a good point - there's a general feeling in the article that suggests totalitarian regimes build Brutalist architecture - and possibly leaves open the suggestion that Brutalism is an indication of fascism and/or totalitarian thinking.
I'm no historian of buildings, but that seems to me to be far from true. Maybe the concept is just too difficult to write neutrally about (unanswerable questions including what counts as totalitarian, which buildings are examples of that etc). JMWt ( talk) 10:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
No, this article just uses word "brutalist" in one example because one of the sources uses such word, but it does not claim that Brutalist architecture belongs to totalitarian architecture because it does not. I just removed this single word from the page. It did not matter. My very best wishes ( talk) 13:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
It may be true that totalitarian architecture is not a distinct architectural style, but it should not be. We need to have a distinct subject described in multiple RS. A subject could be anything, not necessarily a style. My very best wishes ( talk) 13:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:TNT argues that if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. There is non-trivial well-referenced useful content in the existing article, so I think that the appeal to TNT as a basis for deleting the whole article entirely is wholly self-defeating. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Yeah I basically don't think there is anything useful to keep (bar a handful of sources) so my logic is fine. As other editors have noted, when you start actually reading the sources (not just the titles) and comparing it to the text they support, it falls apart. Sources are often of dubious reliable (Psychogeography, a paper on Nazi Architecture from a Materials Sci & Eng conference, political org websites), don't properly reflect the text they support and are taken out of context (eg sources about Nazism or Communism & architecture are used to make statements about all "totalitarian architecture"). It will take ages to sort through the current article and likely very little will be retained. Whereas starting afresh will generate an article that reflects reliable sources and is more likely to attract someone like me to work on it.
Seeing the conversations above, I think a move to Totalitarianism and architecture would be productive and a better reflection of sources. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 02:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply

*Keep I am 100% sure this was a topic in my high school study books, and those were, all things considered, not exactly the most inclusive of sources. I don't for a moment believe too little has been written about this topic to support an article on it, and a swift google books/scholar search does seem to support that conclusion. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 15:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I kindly suggest you review the arguments above as to why Google scholar hits of the words “totalitarian” and “architecture” can get hits without actually demonstrably being its own architectural style. Paragon Deku ( talk) 17:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Hmmm, I don't think it needs to be a style to be E, but I agree with you that it's not a style, and the lead part of the article is currently about a style. So there's a bit of an incongruence in my !vote. The body is a discussion of how the sources use it again, in contradiction to the lead, but it does so in a manner that is very much WP:SYNTH.
I concur. TNT it is, per Vladimir.copic. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 20:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, like I said, references #1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 14, 15, 20, 25, 28, 31, 36 and 37 on the page are about the subject of “totalitarian architecture”, not random hits of words “totalitarian” and “architecture” in Google. My very best wishes ( talk) 04:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Move to draft and rewrite, per the WP:TNT rationale of Vladimir.copic. BD2412 T 19:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per my comments in the prior AfD, and the refs I and others found. The topic is notable. The article likely needs improvement, but I don't see what would be so bad here that it would merit a TNT. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Move to draft. The article combines a range of sources talking about "totalitarian architecture" in different contexts to synthesise a new meaning. In the current form, the article advocates the idea that "totalitarian architecture" is a commonly accepted term for a defined architectural style, whereas many sources argue against it (see Vladimir.copic rationale above). This includes sources used and referenced in the article. For example:
Adam - On the whole, the architecture of the Third Reich closely followed... the architecture of the past... by no means exclusive to Germany or to totalitarian systems, it was the official style of many countries
Sablin - If we were not talking about an article, but a concise response to a question (posed during a survey of some specialists or just enthusiasts) that is placed in the title - whether architecture can be totalitarian at all, I would probably limit myself to the statement that there was definitely no specific architecture of totalitarianism and there couldn't have been. (ChatGPT translation).
I removed two instances of apparent original research that weren't supported by the cited sources, but the overall state of the article leaves an impression that it requires a near-complete rewrite. PaulT2022 ( talk) 08:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Oh no, first source is RS and it says: "In 2017, just before a Polish law came into force banning monuments that “symbolize or propagate” totalitarianism...", hence the connection to the subject of the page is clear. Monuments and memorials are buildings, and they do belong to certain architecture. Sablin [14] criticizes the usage of term "totalitarian architecture", any valid criticism of the term too belongs to the page. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree with Sablin criticizes the usage of term "totalitarian architecture", but this is not what the text referenced to Sablin that I removed from the article was saying.
Monuments and memorials are buildings, and they do belong to certain architecture. is original research. I couldn't find a single mention of demolished buildings or totalitarian architecture in either of the sources. This argument is exactly the kind of synthesis other editors expressed concerns about: "because there are monuments, and some monuments are memorials, and memorials are buildings, therefore monuments are architecture; monuments build by totalitarian states are therefore totalitarian architecture". PaulT2022 ( talk) 22:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Oh no, this source [15] provides a number of specific examples. Sablin - agree with removal, but simply because this is strange source with broken link. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Move to draft and rewrite. This feels like a synth-heavy essay that takes myriad mentions of "totalitarian architecture" and retrofits them into an encyclopedic article about a supposedly settled style. That said, it does seem to be a valid topic of discussion (for instance, it does have a coherent entry in Oxford Reference), so I don't think it should be totally bulldozed.-- Gen. Quon [Talk] 13:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment. Making "draft" will be equal to deletion because the creator of this page is no longer active and no one else will be working with the draft. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I would be willing to work on a draft. Paragon Deku ( talk) 18:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
But it was you who nominated this page for deletion. Does it mean you are changing your opinion to "rewrite"? My very best wishes ( talk) 22:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
No, but if that is the consensus, I would be willing. Paragon Deku ( talk) 04:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia main building, one of seven enormous Stalinist piles in Moscow
  • Keep, there are more than enough sources, including many of those cited in the article, to demonstrate that this easily-recognisable approach to architecture has long been recognised by architects and historians. Cities such as Moscow are indeed littered with enormous, conspicuous examples, but there are plenty in other countries, recording Fascist as well as Communist aspirations, and widely described as such by reliable sources. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
It would be helpful to provide a source that supports this point of view directly.
In the sources I'm aware of, the Seven Sisters, which are being used as as an example, are inevitably described as being distinct from the "easily-recognisable approach to architecture":

The government decree issued in 1947 to start construction ordered that the buildings look uniquely Russian. So the décor is Russian baroque, even if various American landmarks heavily influenced the architects, including the Wrigley Building and the Tribune Tower in Chicago, as well as the Woolworth and Municipal buildings in Lower Manhattan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/29/world/europe/russia-stalin-moscow-seven-sisters.html
Is there indeed a source that would argue that this is the same style as, say, Fascist architecture, which Wikipedia currently describes as "Fascist styles often resemble that of ancient Rome, but can extend to modern aesthetics as well. Fascist-era buildings are frequently constructed with particular concern given to symmetry and simplicity"? PaulT2022 ( talk) 21:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I think this is an interesting point. I wonder if it impacts on the viability of this article.
The article as it stands defines totalitarian architecture as being architecture associated with totalitarian regimes.
I'm not sure if this is your point or not, however it appears that the term (or closely associated terms) can refer to something else in general use. Maybe the "totalitarian" part can refer to a particular type of building wherever it is in the world. Or perhaps it can refer to a type of architect mentality as per this article. Other refs which do not seem to fit with the thrust of this article include 1.
I don't know how to parse this. Can one have "totalitarian architecture" in London or Sydney or Columbus, Ohio? If the answer is 'no', what's the difference between this article and Nazi architecture or whatever? JMWt ( talk) 10:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Precisely. I didn't suggest deleting only because of the Red-tailed Hawk arguments in this discussion: there are sources that indicate that such framing might be notable, and a few non-trivial sources are referenced in this article.
For example, Ward (1970) discusses the purpose of totalitarian architecture and the role of an architect in a totalitarian country. He discusses parallels in how totalitarian architecture seeks to subdue and how totalitarian approaches to architecture are present in democratic societies, which is echoed in the Guardian column you found. There are various discussions of the 'totalitarian' role of the architect, and indeed, Corbusier's ideas. Then, there are sources that discuss the top-down approach of Haussmann's renovation of Paris (although most, I think, stop short of calling it totalitarian), and how these ideas were borrowed by totalitarian urban planning - see Cavalcanti (1992) referenced in the article; also, Urban planning in Nazi Germany.
I think the sources can be used to write a good article discussing the motives and purposes of totalitarian architecture, the role of the architect, approaches to urban planning, and so forth. Unfortunately, none of this is in the article, which mainly advocates for the existence of a supposed "style", a notion not supported or explicitly challenged by the referenced sources. I've proposed draftifying because the current content of the article is primarily synthesis and it requires a near-complete rewrite. PaulT2022 ( talk) 15:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • According to cited sources and the page, this is a specific type of architecture in totalitarian states. Therefore, no, anything in London or Sydney or Columbus, Ohio would not qualify as such architecture. Accordingly, this page does not mention anything in London, Sydney or Columbus. Le Corbusier is indeed important for this page because of his Moscow projects, i.e. he was one of creators of such architecture. But it does not mean that all architecture by Le Corbusier was totalitarian. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm not arguing with you but I offer the following from the reference I found above
    - “Oslo, Moscow, Berlin, Paris, Algiers, Port Said, Rio or Buenos Aires, the solution is the same,” Le Corbusier maintained, “since it answers the same needs.”
    JMWt ( talk) 18:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
What "solution" he is talking about? Does he call it "totalitarian architecture"? I am sure he did not mean that. Saying that, we do have page Le Corbusier in the USSR, which does belong here. My very best wishes ( talk) 19:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • WP:TNT per Vladimir.copic. While apparently well-sourced, I don't think this article adequately reflects any of the ways that the term "totalitarian architecture" is used in the literature. It certainly doesn't give the impression (as it ought to) that the concept is contested. All I see in the article as it stands is thinly veiled WP:OR. So, blow it up! Aquaticonions ( talk) 16:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Just to clarify, this page correctly defines the totalitarian architecture (first phrase) as "a type of architecture ... approved by ... governments of totalitarian regimes, intended to strengthen and spread their ideology". This is a variety of culture serving propaganda. Just as Socialist realism, it does not exists outside of such political systems. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
As about the article not giving "the impression... that the concept is contested" - yes, this is true. This is simply because there are few to none RS where the concept was contested. If you can provide such sources, then they need to be included on the page. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –  Joe ( talk) 10:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Impose (magazine)

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

Apparently non-notable. The Flavorwire page mentions Impose but mostly talks about Evers separately from his work there, the New Yorker EL is an ad for a concert, and the KC Pitch ( archive) might not even be a reliable source. Found no other coverage about the magazine itself.

PROD was rejected due to the number of incoming links but I don't find that a particularly compelling case. Just because a source is used in 500 articles doesn't mean it is itself notable. Notability and reliability are separate standards, no? Same argument from before still applies entirely. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 13:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 13:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Lack of sourcing about the magazine, plenty of sources about things being "imposed". It might be a RS, but without any sort of critical discussion of it, we can't have an article. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: A Google Books search shows it being cited in several dozens of publications (those by the Oxford University Press, Springer, Taylor & Francis, among others) so it is easily a commonly used, reliable source (meeting #1 and #4 of WP:NPERIODICAL). If it is used on 500 Wikipedia pages as a reliable source, common sense dictates it should probably have a page itself. (Sources about niche, but reputable sources rarely exist; but such pages are important for the encyclopedia in a meta sense.) Why? I Ask ( talk) 14:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There does not appear to be significant coverage of this topic as it is defined in WP:GNG. One of the sources cited in this article, the last reference, looks like it could very well count towards notability. (There's a paywall, so I didn't see entire source). But there would need to be multiple sources like this in order to meet GNG. - Hannahthom7 ( talk) 17:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Periodicals (and professors) have slightly different notability requirements in which we often don't necessarily base it fully on the existence of sources directly discussing them. We base it on how much they're cited in scholarly sources. Why? I Ask ( talk) 18:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Notability policy should appreciate it is important that we have information available to readers on widely-used sources used including those used by Wikipedia. ~ Kvng ( talk) 13:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Notified: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#AfD_notice. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 01:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 ( talk) 00:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Salman Muqtadir

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

Non notable Youtuber. Didn’t received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All of sources are interview (primary) or passing mentions and also promotional. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 05:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Agreed with you. Hrksmp ( talk) 09:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak keep, some celebrity coverage in RS, I think there's enough for a notability !vote [16], [17] and [18] Oaktree b ( talk) 13:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: WP:DAILYSTAR in relation to 3rd link. DhakaTribune articles demonstrate notability though. Jack4576 ( talk) 14:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Per nom. Not enough sources to support notability. Sources found are very weak. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 08:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - only references are social media or local news media from Dhaka. Willing to change my mind with more, contradicting evidence. Bearian ( talk) 17:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • keep - Has persistent coverage in national media enough to pass notability guidelines. More sources are available, and the article should be expanded and improved. Deletion is not clean-up. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 05:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep articles from Dhaka Tribune from Oaktree b pursuade me as to notability. Jack4576 ( talk) 14:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Some of the cited sources seems sufficient in establishing notability. But the article certainly needs more improvement, since none of the sources supported the claims on his participation in dramas and enrollment in North South University. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 05:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle ( talk) 10:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Jesús Urbina

Jesús Urbina (  | talk | history | 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 former football player which fails WP:GNG. No sign of notability from a google search Thesixserra ( talk) 04:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Thesixserra ( talk) 04:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - @ Thesixserra:, If you search up Yair Urbina (the name he goes by) portero (Spanish for goalie) on Google, you get a lot of Spanish results. Has made 143+ appearances in the fully pro Liga MX and Ascenso MX. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 13:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Das osmnezz The article needs WP:SIGCOV, is there any in those Spanish results? Alvaldi ( talk) 16:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Looks like a possible keep to me, there is prose on the Spanish wiki, but no sources and generic sourcing on other wiki's. However I don't see it too much at the moment, however, before on the these articles, Spanish/Mexican sources are found online with the right search engines, google is pretty useless here. Govvy ( talk) 20:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Das Osmnezz, over 100 appearances in the Mexican top division and coverage including this and this (there will be better stuff found by Spanish speakers). Giant Snowman 22:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Govvy:, See above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 03:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Happy to withdraw my nomination if someone comes up with reliable sources from any language that helps to meet GNG. Thesixserra ( talk) 03:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Did you only check Google, User:Thesixserra? Surely a player going this far back, should be checked in Proquest. Nfitz ( talk) 04:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Thesixserra:, GiantSnowman provided some above... not to mention that there are many many others besides those ones... clearly was significant figure in Mexican football with 143+ appearances in the fully pro Liga MX and Ascenso MX. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 07:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There is no significant coverage in the article and despite claims of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, only two sources have been presented in the AfD and neither is a significant coverage Of the two, [19] is a single response from an interview with no significant prose regarding the subject and [20] is a minor story about him potentially being recalled from a loan. I am more than happy to change my !vote if sources are found. Alvaldi ( talk) 09:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I did a search in Proquest like @ Nfitz suggested (good call!) and came up with one source of sigcov, a 2012 article from Notimex that covers his career up to that point. There are about 400 hits and I went through the first 50. The rest I found was the normal brief mentions, match reports, interviews etc. It still needs more sources to pass the multiple sources threshold and unfortunately I don't have the time to go through the rest and do the work that the article's creator should've done in the first place. However, if somebody else has the time and comes up with a significant source (from some other publication than Notimex), ping me. Alvaldi ( talk) 09:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Medio Tiempo has an article from 2011 that is similar to the Notimex article from 2012. It seems like a routine transfer announcement, but it doesn't appear to be entirely derivative of a club press release and has a decent career recap. I'd like to see something else that is in-depth, but this could be a close call. Jogurney ( talk) 01:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Jogurney:, [21] ("Yair Urbina was signed by Dorados de Sinaloa in the recent DRAFT, but he will play with a double record in the Mexican soccer affiliate system, this is how Urbina will seek to start the season in competition with Adrián Zermeño, who in theory would be the first option to replace Saucedo at the start of the season against Atlas. Urbina, 30, was in Veracruz last season, before that he was key with Neza for his consolidation in the Promotion League. Reflexes, maturity and security in the exits characterize this goalkeeper who will receive an opportunity in the First Division after passing through Tigres and Morelia not to mention some First Clubs") and [22], among many many more Spanish sources should easily push him over the line. Clearly was significant figure in Mexican football with 143+ appearances in the fully pro Liga MX and Ascenso MX. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 07:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm still looking for coverage, but let's not confuse people about the level of this footballer's career. He's played just 5 minutes (1 substitute's appearance) in Liga MX. Most of his play has been in the Ascenso MX and Copa MX (far lower profile competitions). Jogurney ( talk) 14:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No significant coverage as per WP:SPORTBASIC 128.6.36.94 ( talk) 20:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - I've tried to find significant coverage online, and I'm just not seeing it. There are a few sources that note his Primera debut with Tigres, but the coverage is pretty superficial. The rest of the coverage is generally post-match interviews, interviews about potential transfers/loans/loan recalls and transfer announcements/speculation. A few such at the Notimex and Medio Tiempo sources noted above (and an Atiempo source) contain brief recaps of his career, but they are not in-depth in my opinion. I think if Urbina had played more than 5 minutes in the Primera/Liga MX, we might find a lot more, but he's just a second/third division player. Jogurney ( talk) 02:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and above are promo or brief mentions in routine sports news, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Several good, though brief, sources have been provided above. And there's more that are similar. I think WP:BASIC is met, with the sum of all these references, from many publications. But digging deeper into Proquest, there's significant GNG coverage way back in 2004, when he was with Tigres ProQuest  315779582! GNG is met ... and it's a BEFORE failure - a Proquest search is critical for Latin American players, especially from the early 2000s. Nfitz ( talk) 03:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    The portion of the El Norte article I can see indicates it is an injury report - nothing approaching in-depth coverage. Can you access more than the first two paragraphs? If so, what else does the article cover? Jogurney ( talk) 02:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    The article is 11 paragraphs and 400 words - primarily discussing the injury. And no, 400-word injury reports are not routine! There's a dozen or so more El Norte articles from that time period - which is hardly surprising for the backup keeper on one of the top teams in the continent - even with only one start. We can all access Proquest through Wikipedia library. Nfitz ( talk) 02:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –  Joe ( talk) 10:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Lunar Society Moonstones

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

Redirect to Lunar Society of Birmingham. A WP:Before search wasn't very helpful to find GNG-level sources. There were a couple of attempts to convert this to a redirect, but they were reverted. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Lunar Society of Birmingham; emphasis on the lack of encyclopedia-worthy sources, copyvio issue, and gallery-like format/structure, looks like a page more fit for something like TripAdvisor or a travel blog. Spiritual Transcendence ( talk) 05:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Vote changed to keep per the recently-added sources Spiritual Transcendence ( talk) 01:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is no copyvio - the article predates the alleged source, which plagiarizes us. This is a significant public artwork and landmark by a significant sculptor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, have added a good source and, per Pigsonthewing, the artwork's and sculptor's significance are apparent. Glad there is no copyright, although the website giving credit to Wikipedia writers for its textual presentation would be nice. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as it is now. What's the actual policy-based argument for deletion? Btw, a simple "redirect" is wrong here, if there is nothing at the target article. Johnbod ( talk) 12:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I thought it was implicit, but maybe I should have been clearer. The article didn't meet WP:GNG (since it was unsourced), and in my opinion, still doesn't meet the GNG criteria of having multiple independent RS. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 06:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I see no good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or if deemed appropriate Redirect as nominator suggests. The article references are 'interesting'. The Lunar Society one is a circular reference to this Wikipedia article. The Public Sculpture of Birmingham book was published in 1998, yet the article states the sculpture wasn't unveiled until 1999. No page number has been placed in the citation. The reference seems to me 'suspect'. I've gone through the book and found nothing on these stones. In fact, the Introduction to the book begins with "Birmingham in 1996 has over 370 works of sculpture in the public domain" and adds that "the pieces date from 1709 to 1996", suggesting the material included only went up to 1996. I've checked for later editions of the book but haven't come across any.
Until appropriate sourcing is added to the article or put up for consideration in this AfD, the policy based ground for deletion is that the article doesn't pass any notability guideline. Rupples ( talk) 00:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep / Comment The related 2005 book Public Sculpture of Staffordshire and the Black Country does mention them as "the Lunar Society Monument designed by Steve Field in Great Barr, Birmingham (1998)" as part of the entry on Michael Scheuermann (p. 284). I agree that I don't find a mention of them in Public Sculpture of Birmingham (at least the version available via Internet Archive). There is by the same author a Birmingham Sculpture Trails book (2008), which may discuss them, but I can't locate a copy to review. I did turn up two local newsclippings [23] [24] from when sculptures were unveiled. There were other 2011/2012 stories about development in the area that mention the stones in passing. Beyond that, I do see mention of them in the context of the people memorialized on them (for example, in Secret Black Country, no page numbers, but with a photo of the Keir stone), they're included in local heritage tours, and they have been mentioned by the Birmingham Conservation Trust. These are clearly verifiable and appear to be at least locally notable, even if gold-standard sources aren't readily turning up. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 21:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Bible College NIT

Bible College NIT (  | talk | history | 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 search for sources could not find any indepth coverage in third party sources to meet GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar ( talk) 00:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Effingham-Teutopolis Christmas Classic

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

Don't see how this "High School holiday basketball tournament" meets GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar ( talk) 00:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_May_10&oldid=1156469620"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 09 May 11 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Xbox (console) Other possible merge targets have been mentioned. If necessary, possibly changing to a different target can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty ( talk) 09:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Xbox Exhibition disks

Xbox Exhibition disks (  | talk | history | 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's topic is of a nature that makes it very hard to identify reliable and verifiable sources, which creates an arguable case of lack of notability under WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. In searching for mention of the series, there is next to nothing. Any mention tends to be under primary sources that lists their contents, or, as in the article, link to the disks on the Internet Archive. I can only find one secondary source that mentions the series in very minor passing from Kotaku, which I have included on the article. As raised on the talk page over a decade ago, plenty of platforms have demo disks; that they were distributed by Microsoft to market the Xbox may be better addressed on the page for the console itself. Grateful for your thoughts. Vrxces ( talk) 00:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Merge to game demo it's looking like. It could be discussed as part of a section about the history of game demos. However, the original content they contain does not seem sufficient to merit an article, it seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: SIGCOV is not a requirement for notability, it merely generates a presumption as to notability if SIGCOV can be established. Even without SIGCOV, I think GNG is met here. XBOX had a massive cultural impact, and as the Kotaku article notes, these discs were a part of that system's launch. Furthermore, they were the origins of what eventually became DLC. Additionally, these disks are highly prized by collectors, and that value as a collectable lends some strength to these disks being regarded as notable in their own right. For the above reasons I disagree that this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Perhaps an individual article for each of these discs would be so; but in a collected list article like we have here, I think its fine and encyclopedic. I don't think a merge with game demo would be appropriate. What makes these disks notable is not the fact that they were game demos per se; but that they were part of the XBOX's launch marketing, the launch marketing for numerous notable titles, and remain prized by collectors. As far as individual demo disks go, this series of demo disks are about nearly as notable as you get. Jack4576 ( talk) 11:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    That is a false interpretation of GNG policy. SIGCOV is indeed required for notability. Articles without SIGCOV are not notable or suitable for Wikipedia, period. "Presumed" means that even IF a topic has SIGCOV, it may still not be notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    You're reading that policy wrong. Topics are presumed notable with SIGCOV, however, it is still possible for some topics to be assessed as notable outside of the aforementioned GNG presumption. Ultimately if SIGCOV is not met it requires a judgement call on the facts, engaging with what the subject of the article is, and what it is not, with an assessment made as to whether an entry would be notable enough to be encyclopedic. Jack4576 ( talk) 14:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    There are plenty of articles without SIGCOV where the subject of the article has been found through discussion to be otherwise notable upon review. See AfD discussions here, here, as examples; although with even a minimal amount of effort you can find more.
    For this case, there are verifiable characteristics of this subject that tend toward a conclusion as to its cultural notability. I've spelled them out in my previous comments above. Jack4576 ( talk) 15:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    ???? The ones you linked are not even finished yet, so I'm not sure how you can use them as proof an article with no SIGCOV was kept. This unfinished essay is literally arguing your point should be implemented - the implication being that right now, it isn't. SIGCOV is required. Period. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 16:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I’ve never seen this essay before. I’m merely referring to the actual wording of the GNG guideline itself, which does not unequivocally state that SIGCOV is always required. For that reason I actually disagree with the premise of the essay you’ve linked.
    Yes the AfD’s I linked aren’t complete, but they’re practically at consensus; and if you can be bothered it really isn’t that hard to find other AfD’s where notability has been established without SIGCOV. Jack4576 ( talk) 16:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I think you need to spend less time arguing SIGCOV isn't necessary (long shot argument) and more on establishing its notability in any valid sense. Nothing you've particularly said has been backed by reliable sources or even represented in the article. It's just a barebones list of some games on some demo disks. This looks more like a trivial stub you'd see on an Xbox fan wikia or something. Sergecross73 msg me 19:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    If, the only reason that people provide for deletion is 'No SIGCOV' without actually engaging in a discussion as to a subject's actual encyclopedic notability; (which would actually require an assessment of what we can determine a subject is and what a subject is not); then, it is necessary to remind people that SIGCOV is not a strict requirement under GNG. This is not a 'long shot' argument. This is me calling out legalistic arguments that fail to engage in an actual assessment of a subject. Indeed, a frustrating legalistic argument, as it is an argument that is (wilfully?) ignorant of the actual wording of the GNG policy.
    Regardless, I have made valid arguments as to this subject's notability; if you were willing to engage with them directly.
    For example, the Kotaku article referenced documents that these demo disks were a precursor to the introduction of DLC. That seems to me a unique attribute about this subject that generates an argument that this subject is notable.
    If you disagree with the conclusions of that argument; feel free to do so. To my mind though, that unique aspect (the DLC precursor aspect) is enough to merit this article being a keep, albeit perhaps a weak keep. Jack4576 ( talk) 10:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, but the meaning you're extrapolating from a single passing mention in a Kotaku article is not even close to persuasive to me. Sergecross73 msg me 11:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    OK, reasonable minds may differ Jack4576 ( talk) 11:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'll say it again - you are straight up incorrect about the "actual wording" of GNG. It's not even a matter of opinion, you are just reading it wrong. Lower on the page under WP:WHYN, it states, straight up, We require "significant coverage". Continuing to ignore people telling you that has the potential to rise to WP:IDHT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Even beyond that, the GNG is pretty clear about the multiple sources part too. They're not even clearing that incredibly low bar at this point. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    "multiple sources are generally expected" not "multiple sources are required" Jack4576 ( talk) 15:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Have...you historically found success in keeping an article with only a single reference that only mentions the subject in passing? I've been participating at AFD for over a decade, and let me tell you...I have not. I don't recall this ever working for someone without at least citing some other subject-specific notability requirement. This sort of interpretation would effectively render the GNG useless outside of subjects being complete hoaxes. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    You are correct that WP:WHYN states SIGCOV is a requirement.
    However, the actual general notability guideline as stated, articulates the notability issue in terms of the word presumption; if SIGCOV were actually a requirement, the GNG sentence would read:
    "A topic is suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
    Instead it reads:
    "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."
    Why would it read that way, unless implicitly, it was possible (in some limited and appropriate circumstances) for a subject to be notable even if SIGCOV was not demonstrated? What would be the utility of the SIGCOV presumption if it would always be required.
    I am happy to stop commenting about this and follow consensus if you wish to take this to an RfC. In the meantime, I am engaging in good faith, so your pointing to WP:IDHT is inappropriate. Jack4576 ( talk) 15:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Higher up in WP:GNG it explains why "presumed" is used. Articles that fall under WP:NOT may still not merit articles, despite passing the first, significant coverage criterion. However, articles like WP:GOLDENRULE clearly state that SIGCOV is non-negotiable. Start an RfC on the subject if you wish, but it is likely you will be told the exact same thing. After all, not having a SIGCOV requirement would make almost anything notable, and the GNG would be pointless. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 08:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    GOLDENRULE is not policy. Jack4576 ( talk) 09:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    And your entire argument hinges on a single passing mention and your own unfounded assertion of importance that has persuaded zero participants thus far. Give it a rest. Sergecross73 msg me 02:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    keep your comments in reply relevant please Jack4576 ( talk) 02:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm pointing out the irony of you complaining about an essay being "not policy" when your entire stance isn't rooted in policy, essay, or...anything at all. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to game demo per Zxcvbnm. Fails GNG, lack of SIGCOV. If viewed as a list, it fails LISTN as well. -- ferret ( talk) 20:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per mine and ferrets comments above. Not even close to enough sourcing, in quality or quantity, to warrant a stand-alone article. Wouldn't even be opposed to a delete honestly. Sergecross73 msg me 11:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This could be covered in game demo, or alternatively in Xbox (console). It's hard to see why the topic might need a page unto itself. Even if there were much more sourcing available than there is, the subject isn't conceptually separate to such a degree that a dedicated page makes sense. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to Xbox (console) or Microsoft Game Studios, or more likely, just redirect. There is simply no assertion of notability in the article. I don't understand what all that rambling above is. It seems to be really torturing the definition of the word 'presumed', which is literally defined in more detail in the second sentence at WP:GNG. If you think the topic is notable, WP:THENFIXIT. Axem Titanium ( talk) 23:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If I am understanding the above discussion, the contention is that there can be articles that satisfy WP:GNG without WP:SIGCOV as it is only a mere presumption of notability, in the flavor of WP:NEXIST and arguments such as WP:BARE. The rebuttal has been on WP:NRV and that there is, at this moment, one passing mention in sources illustrating this alternative notability. The intent of framing WP:SIGCOV as a presumption for notability and not a requirement reads to me to establish that the standard is higher than WP:SIGCOV alone, not that the WP:SIGCOV is not a substantial consideration in establishing WP:GNG. Vrxces ( talk) 00:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Xbox (console) (or another consensus target if one emerges).  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, either to Xbox (console) or Game demo per above. The argument that WP:SIGCOV is not needed to pass WP:GNG is a novel on to me. However that seems to be rebutted by by the second sentence of WP:GNG, which explains that the use of "Presumed" is about an article with SIGCOV not getting an article for other reasons, and not an article being kept without SIGCOV. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 21:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 32nd Aviation Division. Randykitty ( talk) 09:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

1st Fighter Regiment (Yugoslavia)

1st Fighter Regiment (Yugoslavia) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 19:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

According to the article, the regiment only existed for a few months after the end of WW2. Only source cited seems to be a comprehensive survey of the Yugoslav Air Force. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 19:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Question: GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Which part of this requirement do you think is not met? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
“Significant coverage” RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 08:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Given the airframes used, there is bound to be coverage in books on those airframes as well as Yugoslavia sources. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 01:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
First we’d have to locate said coverage. Why would such a source cover the topic beyond a brief mention like “The Hurricanes were briefly operated by the 1st Fighter Regiment” though? RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 08:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment leaning "not keep" on this one. Does anyone know of a good merge candidate? - Ljleppan ( talk) 16:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'll just note myself down as delete, as nobody seems to have produced further sourcing: I'm not at all convinced that a single source is enough for a GNG pass. While I'd prefer to merge, I don't know of a good target. Please ping me if further sourcing or a good merge target is identified. - Ljleppan ( talk) 16:56, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Ljleppan Another editor suggested 32nd Aviation Division RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 23:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm WP:AGF on it being a proper target, but merge to that sounds fine. Ljleppan ( talk) 12:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 23:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Organization-wise, I would prefer keep, but if the deck is stacked towards deleting, then merge and redirect to 32nd Aviation Division (per Necrothesp) and keep categories and the interwiki connection on the redirect page. There is little prospect to much greater expansion for this 3-months lasting military unit. Also, a navbox wouldn't be a bad idea. – Vipz ( talk) 07:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to 32nd Aviation Division per above. Note that WP:MILUNIT is an essay, not an official Wikipedia guideline or policy and thus has no relevance in AfD's. Alvaldi ( talk) 20:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    • It's an essay formulated after considerable discussion by people who know what they're talking about! It has also generally been held to be consensus at AfDs that 'major units' are notable. So yes, it does have relevance. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
      WP:MILUNIT is an essay/advice by a WikiProject, not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and thus passing or failing it has no relevance in AfD's. WP:GNG is the controlling guideline here. Note that any consensus created by a WikiProject is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and does not overwrite any formal Wikipedia policy or guideline. WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. Alvaldi ( talk) 13:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per above. AryKun ( talk) 04:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge and redirect to 32nd Aviation Division as above. I'm aware WP:MILUNIT is an essay, but even though this article is brief, it still deserves to be remembered in some way. Equine-man ( talk) 13:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Merge to 32nd Aviation Division.  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Rivka Ladin

Rivka Ladin (  | talk | history | 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. Attempts to find sources for notability in WP:BEFORE came up empty handed. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 23:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: also attempted WP:BEFORE and found nothing Jack4576 ( talk) 11:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. At the very least, the article should mention the subject's current position/institution/company and major contributions to the field, and there aren't even any RS on that. -- Tserton ( talk) 20:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I added 2 references proving she holds a patent, and published multiple papers about distributed computing. She worked for Digital Equipment Corporation and Compaq. She is (a retired) Director at Hewlett-Packard. Geertivp ( talk) 10:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think that the simple fact of holding a patent is anything to write home about - it depends whether the patent is widely used and whether it has been defended successfully in court. The subject has contributed to several highly cited papers, but citations in computer science are so high that I don't know whether she passes WP:PROF#C1 on their basis. Phil Bridger ( talk) 09:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, regretfully. I am hesitant to delete any articles about Women in STEM, since there is such legion gender discrimination in those fields. That having been said, there is too little about the person readily available online to make even a decent stub. I would not oppose userfication, even if it's dumped in my user space. Bearian ( talk) 14:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator and all but one !votes for Keep. (non-admin closure) — MaxnaCarta  (  💬 •  📝 ) 08:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Unseen University

AfDs for this article:
Unseen University (  | talk | history | 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 fictional university, as far as I can tell, fails WP:GNG. Additionally, it is made up of entirely plot summary, which is forbidden under WP:NOT. As for the previous AFDs, the last one was in 2010. QuicoleJR ( talk) 23:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

This is clearly not a plot summary, but it does need more references. PaulGamerBoy360 ( talk) 23:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Please explain where the article mentions Unseen University's real-life importance or reception. QuicoleJR ( talk) 23:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Check out the sources I posted in the second AFD a dozen years ago. Most of those links still appear live. If you'd prefer, it is well within the nominator's remit to do up a source evaluation matrix on them. Jclemens ( talk) 00:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per the sources I brought up a dozen years ago and two AfDs back. Jclemens ( talk) 00:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Jclemens . If people don't want to keep as a standalone article, merge to Discworld, but I think it should be kept. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
That's possible, but creates all sorts of SIZE issues. Fact is, we have a bunch of sprawling articles that could all stand to be tightened up, but being poorly maintained is not a deletion criterion. Jclemens ( talk) 00:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Jclemens. Also Unseen University and Discworld have become part pf popular culture in many places. -- Bduke ( talk) 05:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep per Jclemens Jack4576 ( talk) 11:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 23:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

McKinsey Quarterly

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

Not-notable, self-promotion, advert, out-of-date Mimi Ho Kora ( talk) 22:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment Being promotional (advert) or out-of-date are reasons to improve the article, not delete it. -- Randykitty ( talk) 05:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep: the sources (particularly the Financial Times source) establish that this a highly influential magazine within its circles. The magazine meets WP:BKCRIT criteron #1 as it has been the subject of multiple newspaper articles independent of itself.
It doesn't matter that McKinsey sponsors this publication for its own ulterior motives; the magazine has still had a notable impact in its own right. The fact that the magazine itself is self-promotion; is a separate issue to whether this wiki entry is self-promotion. I've made some edits to bring it more in line with NPOV. Jack4576 ( talk) 11:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
There surely is a self-promotion aspect to McKinsey's publishing this periodical, but nonetheless it gets sufficient outside attention to regard it as notable. It's not just your random run-of-the-mill company newsletter. SchnitteUK ( talk) 21:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep McKinsey Quarterly is a highly regarded publication in the business world. To the nominator, please be WP:BOLD. RPSkokie ( talk) 09:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Jack4576 and SchnitteUK. Passes WP:BKCRIT. Sal2100 ( talk) 21:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 seems to be snowing here, and nom has indicated a willingness to withdraw. There is no need to prolong this AfD. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

George Griffith

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

Only two sources are two footnotes which attribute quotes within the article, but do not source any biographical information. No showing of SIGCOV. More of an essay or thinkpiece rather than an encyclopedic article. Moving for deletion on the basis of WP:TNT. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and England. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 21:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but yes, rewrite. Certainly a notable author, see e.g. the entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and likewise in Don D'Ammassa's Encyclopedia of Science Fiction. I'll see if I can find the time to fix the article while the AfD discussion is open. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    How about DRAFTIFY as an AtD? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 22:07, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Merits entries in The Oxford Companion to Edwardian Fiction (1997) and The Oxford Companion to English Literature (2009). DuncanHill ( talk) 23:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep discussed as a subject in academic literature:
    Mollmann, Steven. “Air-Ships and the Technological Revolution: Detached Violence in George Griffith and H.G. Wells.” Science Fiction Studies 42, no. 1 (March 2015): 20–41. doi:10.5621/sciefictstud.42.1.0020.
    Stoil, Michael J. 2007. “Globalization by Gaslight: Literary Anticipation of Technology’s Effect on State Sovereignty, 1871-1918.” Conference Papers -- International Studies Association, 1–20
    WOOD, HARRY. “Competing Prophets: H. G. Wells, George Griffith, and Visions of Future War, 1893-1914.” Wellsian, no. 38 (January 2015): 5–23. Jclemens ( talk) 00:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: At this point, I'm willing to withdraw the nom, but before I do, I'd like some assurance that those who've voted so far are in turn willing to start work on overhauling this article. I don't want to close the discussion and have everyone go their separate ways, ignoring the work that needs to be done here. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 01:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    ... And why should we do it, rather than you? You assume some privileged position to nominate stuff for deletion, and then when other people have done the work to prove that your nomination would be a bad idea, turn around and demand they do the rest of the work? Do read WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, please, and when you've done so, please decide whether you want to fix this article, or leave it unenhanced and move on to critique some other article without expending any effort to fix this article, which your efforts have correctly identified as not living up to its potential. Jclemens ( talk) 04:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Because I'm humble enough to admit I don't know everything? You've already found two good sources, so why not use them? I suppose I could have just stubified this article to remove all the unsourced material, but I'd rather try and motivate people to get something done. Or perhaps we should just let it sit dormant for another decade while everyone's busy writing episode recap "articles" for currently popular TV shows? Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 21:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    If you intend to motivate people by threatening articles with deletion just because they could be improved but haven't been, I have a real problem with that approach. It's not limited to you, but it is inappropriate wherever it shows up. If you want to improve articles, or simply don't know how to tell if something is notable or not, come to my talk page with a question and I'll teach you how to source things. Others can teach you how to edit problematic articles appropriately, so that they are improved, but still have a roadmap for further improvement. Much more productive and collegial. Jclemens ( talk) 02:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Appreciate the offer. I'll consider that in the future. For now, TompaDompa's doing a great job overhauling this article without your help. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 04:40, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Jclemens, that was needlessly antagonistic. Just Another Cringy Username nominated this for deletion on the basis that it needs to be rewritten from scratch, an observation that is correct, and offered the compromise solution of turning it into a draft which is a fairly reasonable suggestion considering that the article was in a terrible state and most of the sources are not exactly easily accessible ( The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction notwithstanding). I don't think it's fair to characterize that as assuming a privileged position, nor do I think it's accurate to say that "other people have done the work to prove that your nomination would be a bad idea". When the objection is that the article is in need of a complete rewrite, as in this case, it's reasonable to want to make sure that that will actually happen rather than just establish that it would be possible before withdrawing one's objection. At any rate, I've started rewriting this and requested a few sources from WP:RX for that purpose. TompaDompa ( talk) 01:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    "Needs a rewrite" is not grounds for deletion, and neither is "everyone's busy writing episode recap "articles" for currently popular TV shows". Any editor who makes a habit of nominating articles for deletion because they think they need rewrites is very likely to find themselves topic banned from AfD. If an editor think an article needs a rewrite then they can do it themself, ask on the article talk page, find a relevant wikiproject and ask there, or just move on and accept that the world is not perfect. What they must not do is abuse AfD to get it. DuncanHill ( talk) 01:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Beat me to it, thank you. "Needs a rewrite" is a good argument for... wait for it... a rewrite. Not a deletion. Jclemens ( talk) 01:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Needing a complete rewrite actually can be grounds for deletion, canonically, under WP:DELREASON#14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. But of course a rewrite is preferable in such instances, and that is currently underway. You are both very welcome to join the effort. TompaDompa ( talk) 01:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Having looked over two of the sources added to the article, most of the content pre-nomination was justifiable and what it wanted was sourcing more than a re-write. The specifics of Deletion reason 14 don't look to apply in this case GraemeLeggett ( talk) 07:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    TompaDompa, Once again you're demonstrating a skewed and inaccurate view of deletion policy. Which part of WP:NOT says "badly written articles should be deleted"? It doesn't. "Not suitable" in deletion reason 14 is a reference to WP:NOT and nothing else: if it isn't in NOT, it's not covered by deletion reason 14. Do you acknowledge your error here? Jclemens ( talk) 21:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    The nomination says More of an essay or thinkpiece rather than an encyclopedic article. That's covered by WP:NOT ( WP:NOTESSAY), and that's what I was referring to. I could have been clearer about that, I suppose. TompaDompa ( talk) 21:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Extremely notable early science fiction author. And with regards to fixing the article, it's not currently in horrible shape (although yes, it needs work). But that said, Wikipedia's notability guidelines are very clear that notability is established by the subject of the article, not the content or the condition of the article itself. Also worth noting that the same Wikipedia notability guideline states that "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article."-- SouthernNights ( talk) 15:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Notability is shown in the reliable sources about the subject. The article needs cleaning up, but that does not justify deleting it. Passes WP:GNG and BASIC. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 23:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Randykitty ( talk) 09:15, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Sudipto Sen

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

Has produced a notable film, related coverage all around (taking quotes, etc) but notability is not inherited and there is no significant independent and secondary coverage besides that of the film; fails WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E applies Tayi Arajakate Talk 21:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: was specifically profiled and interviewed in 'The Times of India', this amounts to SIGCOV, doesn't matter that the coverage / interview intersected with his film promotion, the SIGCOV means he is presumed notable Jack4576 ( talk) 11:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Are you referring to this interview? It's not a profile, its a short interview about the film. Interviews are also not independent coverage, and WP:TOI in particular often engages in undisclosed advertorials and pay-for-coverage practices, should never be used to determine a subject's notability on its own. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Interviews aren't independent coverage? Even when that interview is conducted by an independent publication, regarding a topic independent of the subject? News to me. This interview doesn't necessarily look like its been paid for. Jack4576 ( talk) 15:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Are you seriously claiming things the subject says are independent of the subject? Interview content fails independence and is primary (per OR, which lists examples of primary documents like original documents, such as autobiographies, diaries, e-mail, interviews, letters, minutes, news film footage,... JoelleJay ( talk) 17:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
the fact that a decision was made to interview him, is a decision that was made independent of the subject.
the fact that he was interviewed means he has been granted significant coverage by the media; even if the claims made in that interview can't be relied upon. Hence the existence of the interview article is independent, but the content of it is not Jack4576 ( talk) 14:57, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: All the media coverage is because of controversies surrounding a film made by him. There is no independent indepth coverage from any reliable sources to meet GNG. He already fails WP:FILMMAKER as the subject is not a part of multiple film productions. Thesixserra ( talk) 03:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. An interview in a "questionably reliable" newspaper is nowhere near SIGCOV, and no other refs have been proffered as counting toward GNG. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The subject has been covered by various primary and secondary sources for his previous works. His film "The Last Monk" (2006) has a well referenced article here on Wikipedia. Sources covering the subject and his prior works include: short film "Akhnoor" [1] (2007); an article in 2014 detailing the subject and his career; feature films "Lucknow Times" (2015), and "Aasma" (2018); documentary film "In The Name of love" (2021), covered by The film catalogue, which has similar theme as his feature film "The Kerala Story" (2023). The subject is mentioned with his photograph in this press release by the Government of India for his non-feature film "Gurujana" in 2022. He was the only Indian jury member among the International Jury at the 53rd International Film Festival of India [2]. As such the subject is quite notable. Rim sim ( talk) 12:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    See gish gallop:
    • Indiancine is like IMDB; an user-edited catalog of Indian movies. Not RS; see WP:IMDB.
    • Urbanasian - which is not a RS (no editorial policy etc.) - carrying PR.
    • An one-paragraph-long coverage of an actress shooting for a film which, incidentally, is directed by Sen. WP:TRIVIAL and we do not rely on TOI for determining notability of film-artists.
    • Transclusion of an IMDB page about a film, by AVClub. Not RS; see WP:IMDB.
    • Some one-man-run film cataloging website. Not RS.
    • A press release by Government Of India. Not RS.
    • A news-article that covers the above event in six lines.
    TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Agree with @ User:Tayi Arajakate. Grabup ( talk) 06:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Merge only BLP quality sourced material to section in The Kerala Story; fails WP:BLP, WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E applies. Currently does not have sourcing for a stand alone bio, but the content will improve the target. If new sourcing about the subject (not 1E coverage) becomes available it can be split.  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination and TimothyBlue. TrangaBellam ( talk) 15:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete TrangaBellam's assessment above indicates GNG is not met. LibStar ( talk) 04:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Yaghob Eissa

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

Played half a match of football then disappeared. Searching in Arabic (يعقوب عيسى) did not yield any WP:SIGCOV and all I can find were the database sites Kooora and Soccerway, both already cited. It would appear that this footballer fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5 and should be deleted. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC criterion 5, I could find no interviews, articles or other material that can provide WP:SIGCOV for the subject aside from basic statistics on their performance. The Night Watch (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ Fats40boy11 ( talk) 05:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Soccer Mania

Soccer Mania (  | talk | history | 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 cites no sources and fails WP:GNG. I have not found any reliable sources for this video game, and most searches come back with Football Mania (known as Soccer Mania outside Europe) which released at a later date in 2002. Please let me know if anyone has more luck than me when looking for a reliable source. Fats40boy11 ( talk) 20:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

List of 100th episodes

List of 100th 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)

Unencyclopedic cross-categorisation and OR. Mccapra ( talk) 20:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:LISTCRUFT. Indiscriminate trivia. Ajf773 ( talk) 21:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please elaborate further on ways it can be more encylopedic OLI 15:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per Ajf773: simply not encyclopaedic. UndercoverClassicist ( talk) 21:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Please elaborate further on ways it can be more encylopedic OLI 15:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
It isn't a notable cross categorisation even in the slightest. Where are the sources that discuss this group of episodes as a whole? This is no more notable than, say, a list of 50th episodes or a list of 200th episodes of random TV series. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Many shows make a point of having a one hundreth episode as opossed to fifty or two hundred OLI 04:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as there is a list for spin offs. There is also a article for the topic OLI 22:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A godawful spin-off of the American television in (year) articles, where these 'century milestone' episodes are noted and sourced appropriately to the year of airing...and these aren't. Presumably this was supposed to be a list of 100th episode articles where we do have one, before we decided episode articles should be better sourced to meet GNG than one Metacritic rating and AV Club review. Nate • ( chatter) 23:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    That second part of that doesnt make sense. The article is based off of List of television spin-offs I am working on the article. Could you please provide actual feedback to help improve it? OLI 03:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I have begun adressing your concern and begun adding sources OLI 16:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • What would help is realizing television history didn't start suddenly in 1998; this article is heavily bent towards recent series and this article can't hope to capture so many 100th episodes of so many series. You not only can't catalog every one, but there has to be some filters (for instance, daily news and talk series, daytime, late night...the 100th episode of a reality series isn't celebrated because it's randomly in the middle of some season/production cycle). Nate • ( chatter) 23:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Im going to catalouge older ones I simply started by adding ones I know had 100 episodes OLI 14:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
How about it is converted into a catagory and will include several pages. I think this would be a good compramise OLI 19:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete LISTCRUFT, and an overall nonsense topic (will we now make 50th episode lists? 150 episodes?). AryKun ( talk) 04:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I think this was answered by another person. So if your going to make useless additions to the conversation here is what he said :::: Many shows make a point of having a one hundreth episode as opossed to fifty or two hundred OLI 04:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[ reply reply
    "Many shows make a point of having a one hundredth episode" No, shows celebrate their 50th and 200th episodes as well, if they ever get to that point. My concern is not whether shows celebrate these episodes, it's whether RS discuss series with 100 episodes as a group (they don't) and whether this milestone is significant enough for list (it's not). This milestone only appears significant in the context of American syndicated shows; if you started adding daily soaps from, say, India to the list, you would soon have several thousand shows with no relevance even in the places they aired clogging up this article.
    Also, I agree that the concept of a 100th episode is notable, which is why we have an article on it. We don't need a list trying to just SYNTH together every series which has ever run for 100 episodes. AryKun ( talk) 10:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. 100th episode of what exactly? What is the scope of this article? What are the criteria for inclusion? Where has the topic been talked about as a whole? It's so vague; the list has little or no meaning. Rupples ( talk) 16:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Eurovision Choir 2023

Eurovision Choir 2023 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An event taking place at an unknown date in an unknown venue. Article cited solely to Eurovoix the Eurovision news site, and Twitter. Not currently widely taked about in reliable independent sources, possibly WP:TOOSOON or maybe not even notable enough for its own article and needs redirecting to Eurovision Choir? Sionk ( talk) 20:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, Belgium, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Wales. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • draftify - the current article is poorly reverenced, plus WP:CRYSTAL. From the article I see many countries cancelled participation. If low attendance, the event may well sizzle. Lokys dar Vienas ( talk) 00:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 10:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Draftify. The articles about the prior years' events seem to have enough coverage, so this one might be as notable. Currently WP:TOOSOON. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 07:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I note that the event now appears to have been cancelled competely. Sionk ( talk) 20:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; draftification is for articles that have potential ( WP:ATD-I), and since the announcement of the cancellation (without clarification, and with very little media coverage of the announcement), I find it very unlikely that this article can still grow. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 20:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Agree that draftifying should be reserved for articles with scope for growth. It appears at this stage that with the supposed cancellation of the event that there is very limited scope for continued development. Sims2aholic8 ( talk) 20:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pro Evolution Soccer. ✗ plicit 23:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Winning Eleven Online

Winning Eleven Online (  | talk | history | 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 fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I haven’t been able to find any sources that would help establish notability. However, if anyone is able to find any sources that would help the article to pass GNG, I would be willing to withdraw this AFD. Fats40boy11 ( talk) 20:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Andrew Kimbrell

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

Apart from a couple of listicles, I can't find any independent biographical sources about this subject. Most of the superficial referenciness is taken from directories or "About" pages of groups he is part of. Guy ( help! - typo?) 19:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Speedy delete: no reliable sources at all Jack4576 ( talk) 11:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ closed as article has been speedy deleted by another administrator. Bearcat ( talk) 20:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Renná Bruce

Renná Bruce (  | talk | history | 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-advertorialized article about a writer and artist, not properly sourced as passing our inclusion criteria for writers or artists. As always, neither writers nor artists are "inherently" notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia just because their work exists -- notability has to be supported by evidence that the person has received external coverage and analysis to validate their significance, such as major literary or arts awards and/or the reception of enough media coverage about them and their work to pass WP:GNG.
But there are just three footnotes here, of which two are online bookstores that are not support for notability at all, and the third comes from a minor niche publication that would be fine for use if there were better sources alongside it, but is not significant enough to singlehandedly get her over GNG all by itself if it's the only secondary source on the table.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have considerably better sourcing than this. Bearcat ( talk) 18:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, and Canada. Bearcat ( talk) 18:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Have added another couple of reviews. There is also this which I cannot access from UK, title being "Latest Jazlyn J book takes on green scene". Pam D 07:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • The poor sourcing of both this and Robert Mark Carpenter has led me to ask the creating editor whether they have a COI. Pam D 07:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I had the same impression. Thanks for asking. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete' I am not finding any reliable sourcing for the biographical information presented in the article. Additionally, the books are published by Jazlyn J Books, which seems to be partially owned by Renná Bruce, so essentially self-published. All signs point to the editor as starting a "career" as an editor. WomenArtistUpdates ( talk) 20:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete:my WP:AGF has expired, as the creating editor has not replied to my enquiry on their talk page about a possible COI although they have created two drafts and one new article since I posted there. The new article includes date of birth info etc which does not seem to appear in any of the sources provided. It appears that this editor probably has a COI with the subjects of their articles. Pam D 07:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The available sourcing isn't enough to indicate that the Jazlyn J series is a "well-known body of work". Moreover, COI editing needs to be nipped in the bud. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Picture of the Last Man to Die. ✗ plicit 23:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Raymond J. Bowman

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

US WWII enlisted soldier. WP:BIO1E, known only for being the subject of the notable photograph The Picture of the Last Man to Die, and insofar as I can tell not substantially covered in reliable secondary sources for other reasons. Some of the content could be merged to the article about the image, but not the overly elaborate infobox, etc. Sandstein 18:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Bassline Boys

Bassline Boys (  | talk | history | 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:MUSICBIO. Binksternet ( talk) 18:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Warbeat

Warbeat (  | talk | history | 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:NSONG. Binksternet ( talk) 18:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

2023 Barzeh car bombing

2023 Barzeh car bombing (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, such attacks/incidents have become commonplace and are not worthy of a separate article. One death and a few injured is not global news. So I recommend deleting. Dl.thinker ( talk) 18:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Article should stay up though be removed from current events page 71.184.221.103 ( talk) 22:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

i personally feel the page should not be deleted as it is an attack within the capital which are considered rare ever since the government was able to claim back the city from rebels in 2018. Dubstar44

Delete WP:NOTNEWS. Ecrusized ( talk) 08:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete These events are common in Syria, even in government-held towns. An event that may be considered rare as it is in SAA-controlled territory is still common for the country. Although it is a saddening event as in the conflict overall, it still doesn't meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Cutlass Ciera 13:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Alberta Debate And Speech Association

Alberta Debate And Speech Association (  | talk | history | 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 search only produced sources related to the organisation giving awards. I do not believe that it fulfils WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Z1720 ( talk) 17:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cunard's extensive search apparently fails to convince the other editors here (or even convinces them that available sourcing is insufficient). Randykitty ( talk) 09:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Olivia Sanabia

Olivia Sanabia (  | talk | history | 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 to meet WP:BASIC or WP:GNG notability requirements, with a lack of high-quality reliable sources and significant coverage. Recent news articles about her, which include her being in a parade or holiday season projects in late 2022, have been simply mere mention or in such a way that she's not shown as prominent. Even a Billboard article talking about Tanya Tucker's A Nashville Country Christmas [4] gives Sanabia only a mere mention.

She may barely pass WP:NACTOR, with her more notable projects in Just Add Magic and Coop & Cami Ask the World, but recent, successful AfD's I've seen for a couple of other actresses who would technically meet NACTOR (e.g., Abby Donnelly and Lauren Lindsey Donzis) are indicating that the more important guidelines for notability are the general ones above, and the current sourcing in this article, plus what I could scrape from searching, are insufficient in establishing that.

Sanabia doesn't meet the WP:NSINGER requirements. Three songs listed, none of which have articles and none of which have made a presence on a national music chart that isn't WP:SINGLEVENDOR (so Spotify and Apple are excluded in this criterion). Even if she were to meet NSINGER, like she does NACTOR (again, barely), there must be significant coverage in a variety of reliable sources to establish that and overall notability. As of right now, however, WP:TOOSOON on NSINGER.

This has been made a redirect before, to her main project Just Add Magic. Because she is main cast in Coop & Cami... as well, redirect isn't feasible at all. I might have thoughts of placing this in draft space instead, but I can't say her acting and/or singing careers are expected to blossom big in the next couple of years. So I'm favoring deletion. MPFitz1968 ( talk) 17:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • I'm going to open with a comment – subject gets only passing mentions in Variety, THR, and Deadline, and went almost entirely unmentioned in Entertainment Weekly (and New York Times). This is a bad sign for passing WP:BASIC... That said, she does appear to have a profile in Los Angeles Times from 2016, though it's in their "sub-publication"(?) called High School Insider (which likely lessens its importance as a source): [5]
    I'm definitely leaning "delete" here (draftify might make sense if she has stuff in the pipeline, but I don't see any evidence for that) – I think this may be another case where a subject "passes" WP:NACTOR, but only in a technical sense, but fails the far more important WP:BASIC criteria. However, I would like to see if someone comes up with anything else first. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Delete: OK, it's been a while now, and no one has come up with anything. I'm going to formally vote "delete" – unless somebody comes up with something else, there is just not enough here to clearly pass WP:BASIC. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 17:35, 10 May 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. Schulte, Stephanie (2016-01-13). "TV: Acting makes magic happen for Corona girl on Amazon series". The Press-Enterprise. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Six years ago, Olivia Sanabia was in a movie theater watching “Ramona and Beezus” when she knew immediately what career path she would take. ... Olivia was only 6 years old. Now 12, the Corona actress has landed a leading role in the new Amazon series “Just Add Magic,” which will air its first full season Friday. ... Determined, Olivia honed her craft and auditioned for commercials, movies and television roles, undeterred if she didn’t land the job."

    2. Robbins, Caryn (2015-12-11). "Olivia Sanabia to Star in New Original Amazon Series Just Add Magic". BroadwayWorld. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Multifaceted actress Olivia Sanabia stars as Kelly Quinn in Amazon's new original series JUST ADD MAGIC. The anticipated series premieres January 15, 2016. ... On the big screen, Olivia is set to star in Day Six and The Secret Life of Me both coming out in 2016. Notable credits include Life in Pieces, The Birthday Boys, Nickelodeon's Sam & Cat, and Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn."

    3. Christi, A.A. (2022-11-11). "Laguna Playhouse & Lythgoe Family Panto Announce Full Casting for the Wonderful Winter of Oz - A Holiday Panto". BroadwayWorld. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Olivia Sanabia (Dorothy) is a 19 year-old, multi-hyphenate actress and singer. She is most well-known for her starring role as "Kelly Quinn" in Amazon's "Just Add Magic." She began acting at the age of 7 in musical theater and commercials. She then appeared on shows such as "This Is Us"," Sam & Cat," "Colin in Black & White," "Extant," and "Life in Pieces," among others. She recently starred in Disney Channel's "Coop and Cami Ask the World." Sanabia's love for singing, songwriting, and playing instruments is evident in her original music. Her recent singles include "Evergreen", "The Train", and "Stars Crossed". She can be seen in Netflix's upcoming spinoff "That 90's Show.""

    4. Hammer, Katherine (2020-11-15). "Exclusive! Olivia Sanabia's latest single is a love note to anyone who's ever felt different". Girls' Life. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Olivia Sanabia knows what it's like to feel different—and that's what her newest original song, "The Train," is *all* about. "The song is kind of a personal journal entry, a peek inside my mind," the Coop & Cami Ask the World star shares with Girls' Life."

    5. Potter, Logan (2018-10-12). "Olivia Sanabia dishes deets on Disney Channel's newest show". Girls' Life. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "After tons of commercials, guest-starring roles on Sam and Cat and Incredible Crew and a starring role on Just Add Magic, the ever-so-talented Olivia Sanabia is back! Tonight, she'll grace our screens on the series premiere of Coop & Cami Ask the World."

    6. Petski, Denise (2022-01-27). "'Just Add Magic' & 'Coop And Cami Ask The World' Alumna Olivia Sanabia Signs With Stagecoach Entertainment". Deadline. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Olivia Sanabia, known for her breakout role as Kelly Quinn in Amazon’s live-action series Just Add Magic, has signed with Stagecoach Entertainment for management. Sanabia starred on all three seasons of the hit Amazon series Just Add Magic, and also starred as Charlotte Wrather in Coop and Cami Ask The World, which aired for two seasons on Disney Channel."

    7. Emery, Debbie (2019-12-13). "'Snow White Christmas' Star Olivia Sanabia Explains Panto: 'Boo for the Bad Guys, Cheer for the Good'". TheWrap. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "... Disney Channel star Olivia Sanabia, who plays the title role of Snow White, explains ... The 16-year-old “Coop & Cami Ask the World” actress admitted that she is also a little nervous about the open forum-style theater that dates back to 16th century Britain. ... Along with her acting credits that include Amazon’s “Just Add Magic,” Sanabia released her debut single “Stars Crossed,” last month, which she says was “deeply inspired by my love of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ — it’s an alternate take on the timeless classic.” Currently playing the dream role of her favorite princess, Snow White, her next bucket list role is to play Shakespeare’s famous female protagonist, Juliet Capulet."

    8. Schulte, Stephanie (2016-06-12). "TV: Magic happens for local actress". The Press-Enterprise. Archived from the original on 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2023-05-15.

      The article notes: "Corona-based actress Olivia Sanabia a will be reprising her role as spirited Kelly Quinn in the Amazon series “Just Add Magic,” based on the book by Cindy Callaghan. ... Sanabia, now 13, knew at a young age she wanted to become an actress. ... During a January interview, Shannon Sanabia recalled her daughter as a toddler grabbing a turkey baster and singing her heart out."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Olivia Sanabia to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard ( talk) 07:06, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 ( talk) 15:59, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

University Scholars

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

This is a gifted-and-talented programme offered by Pennsylvania Leadership Charter School. I don't think the programme has stand-alone notability; and a redirect to the charter school wouldn't be appropriate because there are many similarly titled initiatives at other institutions. Cheers, gnu 57 15:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Pennsylvania. gnu 57 15:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think the nominator has it right. Searching for potential sources finds unusable web churn, the occasional passing mention of the program in a news story about something else [6], and a government document [7]. Nothing is what I'd call suitable. Given these sources, it would be hard to say anything about this program in the article about the school, let alone have an article on the program by itself. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I fully agree with the above. -- Bduke ( talk) 05:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to allow @ Kingsif: and the editor they identified time to sort out the athlete from the French officer. Star Mississippi 01:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Armand Viguier

Armand Viguier (  | talk | history | 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:NOLYMPICS and a WP:BEFORE gave not much more. A French general military officer with the same name seems to exist Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 22:51, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • For the record, I am continuing to search to check on the relation, there's enough military info it should be possible to determine. But the book author would appear to be the fencer, surely, which is likely grounds for a keep anyway. Kingsif ( talk) 23:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply
Update: French Wikipedia has an article on the most famous soldier of the name, a highly-decorated pilot in both World Wars. I don't think someone born in 1893 (as the pilot was) is going to be a fencing master in 1900; I also don't think they're going to be a military master-of-arms in 1910, either. The Toulouse military and fencing Armand Viguier is not going to be the decorated pilot Armand Viguier, I'll separate the sources by year. Kingsif ( talk) 23:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per Kingsif. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 23:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I don't find the general anymore, (sorry for the confusion, struck the general and adapted to military officer). But the two I found are apparently two different people. While the fencer on wikipedia died in the 1930s, the officer without a wikipedia article died in 1985. My officer would have quite a published bio though, which you can see here. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 23:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply
      That looks like the pilot. I'll use that bio to exclude the sources on him from what I'm trying to gather, thanks. Kingsif ( talk) 00:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Neither military generals nor published authors are any more automatically notable than Olympians, and we still need qualifying sources to demonstrate notability. It should also be noted that there is a WWI fighter pilot of the same name: fr:Armand Viguier. Thanks. wjemather please leave a message... 23:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • More an assumption that if you were important enough in the sport to write about it a century ago, you'd be passing GNG nowadays. But honestly, the pilot (easier to separate sources as aviation and infantry are fairly distinct) is less of an issue in determining which sources are about the fencer/master-of-arms than Sartre having a character of the same name (in The Reprieve) that people won't stop critically analysing is. Kingsif ( talk) 23:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • If we put assumptions and assertions to one side, what sources do we have about this particular individual? wjemather please leave a message... 23:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'll be honest, the sources for this AfD are not my priority, and having to exclude is making it worse. I have an advantage with the other French fencer in an identity crisis just because I know about the Olympic movement guy. But even that's not my priority. I may suggest a wait, extending the time on this to gather sources while we (I?) clarify. Kingsif ( talk) 00:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given ongoing research
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ─ The Aafī (talk) 15:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Comment As an update: the difficulty of differentiating in looking up these individuals (when there are clearly multiple) has made me feel that either draftifying for a longer process is needed (are either notable when separated is a big question) or someone more expert to do it. I have reached out to someone, but I think this should be over sooner rather than later. Kingsif ( talk) 20:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Arab Media Watch

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

Pretty much zilch sourcing or sign of significant coverage in independent reliable media sources. Seems to pretty obviously fail WP:CORP. Iskandar323 ( talk) 14:14, 26 April 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 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 14:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - whilst there are mentions, even in academic journals, of this organisation I am not seeing the comprehensiveness needed to meet the GNG. There are a fair number of bits and pieces about Sharif Hikmat Nashashibi so maybe a section on that page should be fleshed out a bit and possibly have a redirect. JMWt ( talk) 19:18, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Isle of Wight NHS Trust. Randykitty ( talk) 09:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Isle of Wight Primary Care Trust

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

Low-content article, no references, not much value, defunct organisation with no notable history to keep Elshad ( talk) 13:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Cavarrone 17:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply

PerdutaMente

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

New article that fails Google test. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Disability, and Italy. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 21:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. "Failing Google test"??? Perhaps try changing your navigator settings then... Article improved (with some sources) since this discussion started. And indeed many sources exist (including, it's true, various interviews with the director but I assume it is because it's a documentary dealing with a rather particular topic; but one, which is on the page, is in La Repubblica). Anyway, a brief Google search gives (and these are not interviews): this in La Stampa, and this, and this and this and this...— MY, OH, MY! 09:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Mushy Yank Unfortunately, I don't know how to change my "navigator settings." I'm not even sure if they exist. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 17:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ I dream of horses They do exist (but maybe you were joking, in which case, sorry because I am afraid I was deadly serious). Maybe the fact that sources did not show up on the first page (?) of your search was only a matter of typing +"film" in the automated search ’Perdutamente’ "-wikipedia", because the title alone of this film is obviously also a common adverb in Italian. But, anyway, now that you do have a few sources attesting the notability of this film that are presented to you, would you consider withdrawing your deletion proposal? .— MY, OH, MY! 19:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Mushy Yank I'm not joking. I just misunderstood your term of "navigator settings." Since there's no harm done in having someone else fluent in Italian to evaluate those sources you added, I'm not withdrawing the nomination. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 19:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    OK, thank you for your replies. Just for the record, I did not add anything on the page, that was someone else, the page creator, I think; I only presented the links to 5-6 sources here. But maybe that was clear. Best,.— MY, OH, MY! 19:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I added a La Stampa reference to the article. The Sky references are not actually independent. There are undoubtedly other Italian sources but so many are behind paywalls. Lamona ( talk) 03:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours

AfDs for this article:
List of most-viewed online videos in the first 24 hours (  | talk | history | 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 may very well be unverifiable, especially the " Top videos" (videos that are not film trailers or music videos) section.

The " Top videos" section has very imprecise-looking figures that look like estimates, such as 400.0, 200.0 and 100.0. It also has notes that say:

"Reached 158 million views in three hours"

"Reached 100 million views within the first hour"

"Reached 100 million views within the first four hours"

which means they probably got more views in the first 24 hours than what is listed, and that this is not an accurate ordered list, yet are still listed as number 4, number 6 and number 7 respectively. There's also no explanation of where the sources got those figures from; they could be making them up!

There's also the problem that there are too many websites to collect view data from. One would have to combine views from not only YouTube, but literally every other website on the entire internet, which makes this article impossible to verify.

There might also be an apples-to-oranges situation going on here. A "view" on YouTube might not be equatable to a "view" on Instagram, for example. The " Top videos" section has an entry from Instagram and an entry from YouTube, but on YouTube you would have to go to the video's own unique page to view it, while on Instagram, you might only need to scroll down through a feed with many other posts, and thus inadvertently view the video in question. If this is true, the view counts cannot be compared in this way.

If action is to be taken on this article, I would suggest removing the " Top videos" section and keeping the " Top music videos" and " Top trailers" sections. 123957a ( talk) 08:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. with alternative action: unmerge trailers and change to YouTube videos in 24 hours. I generally agree with the sentiment, but have an alternative proposal: split into two articles: 1. List of most-viewed YouTube videos in the first 24 hours and 2. List of most viewed trailers in the first 24 hours. Trailers were previously a separate article that was merged in, and "total views in the first 24 hours" is a commonly reported metric for trailers. On the other hand, a "top music videos" article will suffer from the same apple-to-oranges problem mentioned. Considering the music videos are all on YouTube, I believe it makes sense to have top YouTube videos in 24 hours rather than top Music videos. (This also seems reasonable considering that there is a List of most-viewed YouTube videos article but no "most viewed online videos article".) Yannn 11 18:02, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Splitting would require overturning the AFD that caused them to get merged in the first place. Primefac ( talk) 18:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Can that merge be overturned in this discussion? I don't have a strong opinion on the trailers. Having one page for something like "most viewed music videos and trailers in 24 hours" seems awkward, however. Yannn 11 18:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This appears to be a proposal to remove the "Top videos" section and leave the rest of the article alone. I am not sure why this is an AfD discussion. In any case, I support the removal of that section, in addition to a possible rename. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I tried to keep other possibilities open as well. 123957a ( talk) 23:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • I'm more on the delete side. Social media platforms count a "view" in differing ways, so that no one view is equal to another. Making apples to oranges comparisons is a violation of WP:SYNTH. SWinxy ( talk) 19:54, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 12:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Purely WP:SYNTH. No objection to creating new articles for the more specific sections (music videos and trailers that have verifiable coverage), but trying to compare views across multiple platforms is impractical and usually WP:OR. Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete due to WP:SYNTH problems that I do not think can be overcome. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I have been mulling this eventual AFD pretty much since I started keeping an eye on the page and enacting edit requests after it was protected. While I might not go so far as to say there are SYNTH issues, there are definitely WP:V issues - every value in each of the tables is reliant on the parent company releasing the information, whether that be a Chinese television broadcaster or a video sharing platform. YouTube's own view-counter is notoriously unreliable (we had to practically re-write the entire music video section at one point because YT said "oh by the way our counts are way off, here are the 'fixed' values"). There are also (as mentioned) the multi-platform-view issue, though I am less concerned about that since that metric seems to be used only for trailers and not music vidoes or the generic videos. I do suppose the SYNTH part of the issue is that we rely on secondary sources to notice these videos: it's the quintessential "if a tree falls in the forest" issue - if no one notices a video gets views, how do we record it? For music videos this is less of an issue, but as I noticed with the generic videos section some of the highest values were added years after the event happened. In other words, do we know what we don't know? Primefac ( talk) 09:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I am changing to delete based on the points raised regarding WP:V and WP:SYNTH. To expand on Primefac's point regarding "do we know what we don't know?", I would contend that even a "list of most-viewed YouTube videos in the first 24 hours" would have the same limitation. For example, YouTube hides view counts on Google Doodle YouTube videos, and the Google homepage receives an estimated 40 billion visits per day. [1] Yannn 11 14:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Due to WP:V concerns, based on Pricefac's comment. Hey man im josh ( talk) 17:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://theoutline.com/post/2405/why-is-google-hiding-view-counts-for-google-doodles
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

List of members clubs in London

List of members clubs in London (  | talk | history | 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 page and List of gentlemen's clubs in London are essentially interchangable and thus the one can be deleted and redirected to the other. The information is in a slightly different format but I don't think there's much which is left to merge or would be lost with a redirect.

I'm nominating this page because it has an orphan hat whereas the other is arguably better linked and integrated. However I think there's an argument to say that the candidate for deletion should be List of gentlemen's clubs in London on the basis that there are clubs in London of this type which, strictly speaking are not and never have been for gentlemen such as the University Women's Club - but that doesn't seem to currently matter as it appears in both pages! JMWt ( talk) 11:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While certainly the count is heavily towards "keep", I am not finding a strong, unchallenged argument to do so. There is disagreement regarding the strength and depth of available coverage, therefore I find no consensus to this discussion. Before renomination, it would be recommended to look closely at each source listed to see if an encyclopedic-ally useful article can be built upon them. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 01:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Hieronymus Schlick

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

Notability. Czech WP, while slightly longer, cites one genealogy source and nothing else. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 08:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 08:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Czech Republic. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • It'd be reasonable to redirect this to Thaler#Joachimsthaler since there is no useful information in the article itself. There is a very little about Hieronymus (presumably II) here: [8] but it's trivial stuff about minor local administration. Elemimele ( talk) 14:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Support redirect per Elemimele. Sounds like this guy is just one from a rich family who did the same thing, which could be a better topic for an article (though isn't yet). Jdcooper ( talk) 20:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Corresponded with Luther ( [9]) and treated by Agricola ( [10]). Expandable. Srnec ( talk) 01:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't normally come back to deletion discussions, but accidentally did to this. I think it's going to be quite difficult to write a convincing article based on a passing reference (less than one sentence, mentioning that he and his brother received a letter from Luther and possibly reacted by issuing an opposition to Anabaptists), and a single mention of his name, identified as the brother of someone else, in an article about someone quite different (Georgius Agricola). Luther wrote to quite a lot of people. A five-volume set of his letters amounting to more than 2400 pages is described as "a selection of" his correspondence, so the letter is not a great surprise; was there any further correspondence between them? Did he influence Luther's views? He was a regional ruler; the big question is whether anyone has actually written a decent history of him, or at least included more than passing references to him in a history of something else? I'd love it if someone has. I did try to think of a way to add Smec's refs into the article, but it's quite hard to do it without it sounding like a bit of trivia. Elemimele ( talk) 11:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Well said. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 23:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Srnec. Appears to be reasonably notable. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:18, 18 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 11:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep -- Unfortunately I do not know Czech, but the Czech WP article on him is slightly longer and it clearly considers him notable. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can you at least read an automatically translated version of it before you decide what it says? RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 19:35, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    It doesn’t appear to consider him very notable, by the way. Just a more detailed genealogical/biographical sketch than ours, citing only one source (a genealogy site). RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 19:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep - an important personality of the Czech history, as suggests this source - publication of the National Museum of the Czech Republic. Contains a lot of other sources. Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 07:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    I don't know Czech so I'm relying mostly on autotranslation and would appreciate correction, but does the word wikipedii translate as anything other than "Wikipedia?" If not, the information on Hieronymus Schlick here seems to be A) purely genealogical, B) a passing mention, and C) citied to Wikipedia. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 00:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the proposed reference material would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Redirect to Thaler#Joachimsthaler Delete. The sources Srnec provided seem reliable but have little more than a passing mention of Hieronymus. The source Vejvančický provided also is only a passing mention, and appears to cite Wikipedia. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 01:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Changing to delete; the proposed redirect doesn't seem have any information on the individual in question at all. Dylnuge ( Talk • Edits) 01:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:09, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep The History of Money has 3 paragraphs on the subject. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 18:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC) The Encyclopedia of Money has 2 paragraphs. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 ( talk) 09:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Worth noting that most of the word count of those three paragraphs consists of narrative fluff. The facts in there could be summarized much more succinctly. RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 19:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This historical figure carries significant importance in the context of the origin of the dollar and possesses a captivating narrative. Holding the prestigious title of count within an absolute monarchy, he can be acknowledged as a member of the royal court. Moreover, their story finds extensive documentation in various national historical papers and has been subject to scholarly discussions among historians. Given these factors, it becomes apparent that this individual holds a notable status and merits recognition for their contributions and profound impact on history. So look notable to me. Being a stub article is not a reason for deletion. 1.47.196.154 ( talk) 23:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Can you please link to “various national historical papers”, then? RadioactiveBoulevardier ( talk) 04:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Procedural close‎. Article has been moved to draft space by author. If the draft meets WP:DELREASON then the correct venue is WP:MFD. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer ( talk) 13:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Kayes Arju

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

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:NACTOR fails WP:NSINGER 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note that the creating editor has moved this unilaterally back to Draft space and removed the AfD notice immediately post nomination. I'll leave others to judge the validity of this set of operations. I am not minded to withdraw the nomination. 🇺🇦  FiddleTimtrent  FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 11:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 02:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Wellington Carvalho

Wellington Carvalho (  | talk | history | 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 tagged this article with a BLP PROD since as of this nomination it has zero references. @ Simione001 asked that this be moved to AfD so here we are. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if the article is improved to include at least two sources. Normally this kind of behavior at AfD isn't appropriate. We never hold articles hostage to improve them. But when it comes to living people we have a higher standard which includes citing sources for out claims. That's a really easy standard to pass and it matters. Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝) 09:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Christine M. Rose

AfDs for this article:
Christine M. Rose (  | talk | history | 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 considering mainly weak sourcing, still reads as WP:RESUME, and the only point that's debatable per WP:AUTHOR is that their work has won significant critical attention via invitations to Cons. I don't believe that meets the criteria.

Noting SPA page creator. 30Four ( talk) 09:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete. Old SPA-created article that is basically a CV. There is no credible claim to notability (eg being lauded at conventions) and sources are almost all ephemeral, obscure, or the subject's own webpages. Rowan of the Wood is held by a paltry 24 institutions (WorldCat). These are the sorts of articles that make WP look like a directory. 128.252.154.3 ( talk) 15:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Rose appears to have won an award, but it does not appear to be significant. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 12:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was Procedural close‎. Withdrawn by nominator, as noted below. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 20:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Rugg v Ryan

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

Withdrawn by nominator. Article to be merged instead of deleted. Jack4576 ( talk) 10:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) This page is for a proposed litigation that was settled before it arose, and so refers to a court case that does not exist. Due to its settlement, the outcome of the court case was legally insignificant, and the case itself is not notable as a separate entry per se. I propose that content of this entry be deleted and reworked into the Wiki pages for Ryan & Rugg as persons; perhaps as a paragraph remarking that they litigated against each other. Jack4576 ( talk) 07:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree. Starting a 2nd AfD so soon after is only really acceptable if it was closed as 'no consensus' due to lack of participation. If the close was unacceptable then contest it at User talk:Guerillero, the admin that closed it. If not happy with their response then take it to WP:DRV. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I'd urge you to assume good faith LibStar.
The AfD was a week ago, but situation has changed two days ago.
This is because since the last AfD, the case was settled. See: here, and here.
Hence the nomination now. The arguments for keep under the previous AfD no longer hold. Jack4576 ( talk) 09:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
To be clear, the previous close was acceptable; it was a good decision based on what we knew at the time.
Hence it seemed more appropriate for a new AfD on new facts; rather than re-opening the old one.
Thanks Spiderone. Jack4576 ( talk) 09:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Replying to LibStar's comment: "once notable always notable" - this case never happened. The subject does not exist. It was a prospective litigation that settled.
Before it settled it was prospectively notable as a legally significant employment law case. There is no prospect of that now, hence no notability.
re: 'Nominations of this kind undermine the Wikipedia project as a whole'; obviously when I made that comment, I was not referring to nominations of this kind. I would implore you LibStar to avoid randomly quoting out-of-context sentences from my other AfD threads like this. Its not constructive.
Besides, I am proposing to Merge, not delete. Jack4576 ( talk) 09:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Re: "The last AfD was only closed a week ago"
As I've stated above, the AfD was a week ago, but situation changed two days ago.
This is because since the last AfD, the case was settled. See: here, and here.
Jack4576 ( talk) 09:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
If you are proposing to merge, please do not waste the community's time with this deletion discussion. Nominations of this kind undermine the Wikipedia project as a whole. Please follow the instructions at WP:MERGEPROP. This AfD should be closed as a procedural keep, as even you as a nominator are not even seeking deletion. LibStar ( talk) 10:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Geez. Tone. Sure, happy to close as procedural keep and merge. Jack4576 ( talk) 10:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The initial deletion discussion and this discussion could have all been avoided if a certain overzealous editor wasn't so keen to create an article for purely political purposes (after previous politically biased edits were rejected by 3rd opinion on another page) on a case where a trial hadn't even started.
The potential for this to fizzle into nothing was quite high and if the 'disagreement' wasn't notable enough for its own article now (which it isn't), then it never truly was.
I hope all involved learn a valuable lesson from this, particularly the creator of this article. Simba1409 ( talk) 12:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Demetris Spyridakis

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

Footballer who fails GNG and SPORTSBASIC. No appearances in senior fully-pro leagues, no GNG-satisfying media coverage. BlameRuiner ( talk) 06:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

weak keep: 2nd reference appears to be an independent reliable source. He appears has been signed as a player within the highest division of that country's national league, I think this lends weight to notability. As Spiderone has pointed out the sole source appears to draw from information that is self-published and neither reliable nor independent. Delete. Jack4576 ( talk) 06:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
FYI Wikipedia needs 2 reliable independent sources under WP:SIGCOV to be notable. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
That isn't a strict requirement under SIGCOV Jack4576 ( talk) 08:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Also, the second source is probably too small to be compliant with the "significant" part of SIGCOV. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
It's two sentences in length so definitely doesn't meet the 'significant' requirement of WP:GNG. It does then link to a Facebook page which is self-published and neither reliable nor independent. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www-omonoiafc-com-cy.translate.goog/%cf%85%cf%80%ce%ad%ce%b3%cf%81%ce%b1%cf%88%ce%b5-%ce%b5%cf%80%ce%b1%ce%b3%ce%b3%ce%b5%ce%bb%ce%bc%ce%b1%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%ba%cf%8c-%cf%83%cf%85%ce%bc%ce%b2%cf%8c%ce%bb%ce%b1%ce%b9%ce%bf-%ce%bf-%ce%b4/?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp No His employer No No Press release about signing a contract ✘ No
https://www.24sports.com.cy/gr/sports/podosfairo/kypros/b-katigoria/meap/meap-meta-ton-asimeno%E2%80%A6-firmani-kai-gia-spyridaki Yes Yes No Has 2 sentences of prose altogether ✘ No
https://www.alphanews.live/sports/epaggelmatiko-symbolaio-me-tin-omonoia-o-dimitris-spyridakis No Mostly a copy of the press release in #1 Yes No As per #1 ✘ No
https://www-kerkida-net.translate.goog/eidiseis/a-katigoria/omonoia/ypegrapse-epaggelmatiko-symbolaio-o-dimitris-spyridakis?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp No As above Yes No As above ✘ No
https://goal.philenews.com/podosfero/kypros/a-katigoria/omonoia/omonoia-ypografes-symvolaion-kai-diloseis-apo-ton-spyridaki/ Yes Yes No One sentence of prose then a link to video published by his employer ✘ No
https://themasports.tothemaonline.com/Article/796437/spyridakhs---o-mpomper-ths-omonoias-k-19-gia-ton-titlo-kai-ta-gkol-toy Yes Yes No Quote pulled apparently from Omonia's website with zero third party analysis ✘ No
https://www-kerkida-net.translate.goog/articles/akadimies/798765-niki-me-spyridaki?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp Yes Yes No Mentioned once ✘ No
https://www-omonoiafc-com-cy.translate.goog/%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B4%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CE%B3%CE%BD%CF%89%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%B6%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BC%CE%B5-%CE%BC%CE%B5-%CF%84%CE%BF%CE%BD-%CE%B4%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%AE%CF%84%CF%81%CE%B7-%CF%83%CF%80/?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp No Q&A from his employer published on employer's website No No Zero third party analysis ✘ 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}}.
Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Nikolas Kyriakides

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

Footballer who fails GNG and SPORTSBASIC BlameRuiner ( talk) 06:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

weak keep: He appears has been signed as a player within the highest division of that Cyprus' national league, I think this lends weight to notability. Jack4576 ( talk) 06:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
It doesn't lend weight, I'm afraid. Only meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC does. In fact, even before WP:NSPORTS2022, signing a professional contract wouldn't be sufficient on its own. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
GNG only establishes a presumption; its absence does not prove a subject is not notable
In my view for the reasons stated earlier the subject is prominent enough to be nevertheless notable
Hence week keep Jack4576 ( talk) 10:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article isn't notable; a defender in a country as small as Cyprus is unlikely to have any sources, and I couldn't find any, even in Greek. Although there doesn't seem to be any specific guidelines for football, it definitely fails WP:SPORTSBASIC. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Hasn't even played a top level match. Reconsider when he actually establishes a career. No sources to meet WP:BIO. LibStar ( talk) 07:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my source analysis. In summary, the coverage found is all just copied directly from a press release from his employer or a quote with no analysis from a third party. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www-omonoiafc-com-cy.translate.goog/%cf%85%cf%80%ce%ad%ce%b3%cf%81%ce%b1%cf%88%ce%b5-%ce%b5%cf%80%ce%b1%ce%b3%ce%b3%ce%b5%ce%bb%ce%bc%ce%b1%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%ba%cf%8c-%cf%83%cf%85%ce%bc%ce%b2%cf%8c%ce%bb%ce%b1%ce%b9%ce%bf-%ce%bf-%ce%bd/?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp No His employer No No Press release about signing a contract ✘ No
https://www.alphanews.live/sports/epaggelmatiko-symbolaio-ston-nikola-kyriakidi-apo-tin-omonoia No Almost entirely copied from press release above Yes No Press release about signing a contract ✘ No
https://balla.com.cy/2022/05/27/epaggelmatias-kai-o-nikolas-kyriakidis-fotos/ No As above Yes No As above ✘ No
https://goal.philenews.com/podosfero/kypros/a-katigoria/omonoia/omonoia-edese-kai-ton-nikola-kyriakidi/ No As above Yes No As above ✘ No
https://www.kerkida.net/eidiseis/a-katigoria/omonoia/epaggelmatias-stin-omonoia-o-nikolas-tha-toys-apodeixo-pos-axize-ton-kopo Yes Yes No Very little prose and then has a link to a video made by his employer ✘ No
https://www-kerkida-net.translate.goog/eidiseis/alles-stiles/akadimies/omonoia/o-nikolas-kyriakidis-sholiazei-tis-proponiseis-tis-u19?_x_tr_sl=el&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp Yes Yes No Quote from him with no analysis ✘ 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}}.
Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 07:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 ( talk) 04:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Udini Square

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

Last AfD was 5 years ago, however I'm not convinced this shopping centre meets GNG. The Malay version of this article is poorly sourced. A look at the existing sources:

  • 1. a routine announcement about how much of the centre is leased.
  • 2. a dead link
  • 3. and 6. routine announcements about a store opening
  • 4. dead link
  • 5. appears to be a developer's website, doesn't link specifically to info on this shopping centre.
  • 7. and 8. public transport information

LibStar ( talk) 01:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep: WP:SIGCOV is not a requirement for assessing notability; it is just one factor in a general process that requires careful judgement. The size and location of this shopping centre, which appears to be established by the sources, suggests that this mall is a notable entity in its local area, and to enough people generally to make it worthy for inclusion. Jack4576 ( talk) 06:49, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
"The size and location of this shopping centre" are not criteria for notability. Nor it being "notable entity in its local area". It must meet GNG. LibStar ( talk) 06:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
We are looking for GNG evidence that the shopping centre is a notable entity.
The sources, that show the centre is likely (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area; all suggest to me that this article merits its own article.
The issues with the references are not so defective as to prevent one from establishing the above. GNG is met. Jack4576 ( talk) 07:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
" (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area" Again, please point to the notability guideline which gives shopping centres notability on the basis of these criteria you name. LibStar ( talk) 07:21, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
GNG satisfaction gives rise to a presumption that a subject is notable.
It is not a requirement that subjects pass GNG to be assessed as notable.
The real-world features of this subject are strong reasons, that in the real world, to real people, this subject is notable, and thus it would be to Wikipedia's benefit to retain this entry. Jack4576 ( talk) 08:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
"The real-world features of this subject are strong reasons, that in the real world, to real people". Again you are inventing your own criteria for shopping centres. LibStar ( talk) 08:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I am not appealing to GNG criteria, I am appealing to the meaning of notability in the colloquial sense.
As I have stated earlier, independent of the GNG guidelines (which I note, establish a presumption and are not determinative of the notability issue per se); I think there are reasons this subject are notable.
I think the observation that notability is established by:
(1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area
is inutitive, and grounded in common sense Jack4576 ( talk) 10:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
What you consider "grounded in common sense" may not align with meeting notability in Wikipedia. You are welcome to start your own online encyclopedia based on your "intuition". You could then include all shopping centres that are (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area. LibStar ( talk) 10:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Also I am curious to know what are your intuitive thresholds for large by floor space area, and how many visitors makes a large number. LibStar ( talk) 10:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I have provided reasons for my notability assessment, free to disagree with them.
I do think those reasons align with the Wikipedia threshold for notability. I think its fairly arguable that this an important centre for a large number of people, based on my reasons provided above, based on the geography, building size, and the photographs and images that show the centre's size and location. (None of which are issues that are in dispute).
Given the above tends towards the view that Udini Square is a keep, it would seem to me it is entirely unnecessary to start another encyclopedia. The guidelines for this one are fine as it is, usually.
I have contributed my views, and my reasons, and my opinion remains keep is appropriate. Feel free to engage and provide counterarguments if you wish; but maybe it would be best to invite other editors in an RfC if consensus cannot be reached here. Jack4576 ( talk) 15:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
RfC's are for content disputes, not deletion discussions, which are supposed to be here. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:39, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Jack4576: This is the first time I've heard this. You need to make it clear why you think this article should stay on Wikipedia, and article need to meet SIGCOV as a requirement to be on Wikipedia, which this one definitely does not. To be clear, my vote is Delete unless someone can find sources or restore the dead links. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
SIGCOV creates a presumption that a subject is notable
Subjects are still capable of being notable without SIGCOV. With respect, I think you need to re-read GNG more closely. Jack4576 ( talk) 07:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Subjects are still capable of being notable without SIGCOV', only true if it meets one of the accepted notability guidelines like WP:NPOL for politicians , WP:NACTOR for actors etc. There isn't a shopping centre notability guideline that gives notability for " (1) large, (2) visited by a large number of people, and (3) is located in a central/important area". LibStar ( talk) 07:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Untrue. You are confusing guidelines that give rise to a presumption; they are not a requirement. This goes for all of the policies you have cited.
I accept that this shopping centre doesn't meet the guidelines so as to give rise to a presumption. Nevertheless, I think taking a step back, the evidence we have available to form a view as to what this shopping centre is; tends toward a conclusion that it is notable enough that it would be to Wikipedia's benefit to retain this entry. Jack4576 ( talk) 08:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
You still haven't demonstrated how it meets GNG? Did you actually search for sources? Or WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar ( talk) 08:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I am clearly providing reasons, and so my argument is not WP:ITSNOTABLE
My reason is grounded in an empathy for the persons in this local area, coupled with an intuitive judgement as to what would be notable to people and what people would reasonably expect to be in an encyclopedia.
GNG establishes a presumption that an article is notable. it is not a requirement for notability; and as I have stated above, this subject has multiple inherent characteristics that I think warrant its inclusion for notability. Feel free to disagree. Jack4576 ( talk) 09:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
But we're talking about how this article fails GNG, not about the presumption of notability? This argument makes no sense, nor does the "empathy" for people in the area, because this is a notability discussion and not about the local community, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and the fact this article receives just 9 average page views daily, most of which are probably editors. Your arguments, here and on other discussion, devolve into WP:POINT votes, including on an RfA (which you, thankfully, withdrew after extensive discussion), and numerous WP:ITSNOTABLE votes. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Some of the dead link sources have been updated with archived links, and they seem to also be routine announcements of store openings. Searches of the term did not returned with sufficient coverage, and searches in Malay and Chinese only yielded trivial mentions as well. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 23:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV. We don't have articles with tons of openings and new shoppes, interviews of the hopes and dreams of 100 shopkeepers, and the like. That's not significant coverage about the mall, and of them that are in local news or tourist authority press releases. Penang is notable, and a lovely city (I've been there, and it's one of my favorite places in the world; my alternate executor's husband was born there), but I don't see how this is any way notable. Routine coverage of businesses do not pass WP:NCORP. A southeast Asian market can be notable (see, e.g., Carbon Market), but it has to be shown to be notable. Bearian ( talk) 16:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per nom source eval, and Tutwakhamoe and Bearian. The keep vote above seem to be explaining why the subject doesn't really need to meet GNG, rather that providing sources with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and and indepth, and showing the subject does meet GNG.  //  Timothy ::  talk  06:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Totally agree. The keep voter has made zero effort to demonstrate existence of sources to meet GNG. Or maybe he has searched and found nothing. All he has done is invent his own criteria for notable shopping centres. LibStar ( talk) 06:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – non-SIGCOV and ROUTINE-ish sources can't prove notability. I can't seem to find any sources that significantly cover the subject online either. Nythar ( 💬- 🍀) 17:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Soundhog

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. This piece in North Wales Live is the only piece of non-SPS coverage I can find and does not demonstrate notability. An AfD in 2004 demonstrated a consensus to delete (IMO) but was never closed. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 03:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 06:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Delete: I found this piece also, but it doesn't look altogether independent and notability doesn't appear established Jack4576 ( talk) 06:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Fails BLP, GNG and BIO. Sources in article and BEFORE are promotional. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  //  Timothy ::  talk  23:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 06:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Alisa Khachatryan

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

Footballer who fails GNG and SPORTSBASIC. No evidence of national team debut, despite multiple bench appearances. No GNG-level coverage. BlameRuiner ( talk) 06:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Weak delete: I'm unsure whether a football player needs to have actually have debuted for the national team to be notable. Surely having been signed is enough. In any event, there aren't enough sources here to establish much. Jack4576 ( talk) 07:01, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 04:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Madison Jeffries

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

This article is sourced entirely from the pages of comic books, i.e. primary sources. No showing of real-world notability. Reads like a fanpage. Just Another Cringy Username ( talk) 06:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Strong Keep: sources appear to be reliable, and primary sources are fine to use; at least within reason and to not make inappropriate claims. Given that this is a fictional character the use of primary sources to make claims about the entry for the most part seems fine. The fact that the primary sources are comic book pages is absolutely no problem. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD Regardless, the Marvel official handbook counts as a secondary source on the character and is cited. Notability is demonstrated by the character's prominence in an extremely notable form of American media. (i.e. marvel comics) Character is also created by a notable author, and appeared in multiple stories. I think this is sufficient to cross the notability threshold. Issues with style can be addressed through edits or article's talk page. Jack4576 ( talk) 07:11, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Primary sources can be used in articles, but WP:SIGCOV makes it very clear that at least two sources have to be "independent of the subject" to quality for notability, which this clearly isn't, nor is there any online. JML1148 ( Talk | Contribs) 07:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Where are you getting the 'at least two' from? Can't see that requirement under WP:SIGCOV. The singular secondary source, paired with the numerous primary sources suggest to me that its more likely than not that this subject is notable Jack4576 ( talk) 07:46, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Since the guideline uses plural sources, "at least two" is the most mimimalistic interpretation of "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources". Sources, not source. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
"multiple sources are generally expected", is the guideline, not "multiple sources are required" Jack4576 ( talk) 10:51, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Genuine Question - how can a Marvel handbook be a secondary source? It's an additional fiction created by the same company that created the comics, it just has a different format. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 06:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The handbook documents and describes a fictional subject, but is not itself an instance of the fictional subject. Hence secondary. Marvel being the publisher for both doesn't matter. (I note the authors for both texts are different anyway) Jack4576 ( talk) 13:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
That's crazy. Unless they've changed drastically since I last picked one up, they're written in-universe and often add extra fictional information (e.g. abilities never seen in comics, such as strength levels, or retcons like labelling Iron Man's armours). Marvel being the publisher for both really should matter as everything ultimately comes under the same editorial vetting; they're no more (or less) valid than a profile printed in a comic itself. Same goes for any of the heavily-vetted Official DK books and the like because it's all fiction licenced by the publisher and a primary source. A useful primary source, but a primary source nonetheless. It's no more valid in a sense of third-party notability than a YouTuber making a guide about themselves; they are not independent or objective. BoomboxTestarossa ( talk) 16:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle ( talk) 10:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

List of tallest buildings in Haaglanden

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

PROD rationale: Per a comment from RJP98 on the talk page from March 2021: "Firstly, "Haaglanden" does not officially exist as an urban area anymore (only as a safety region, which doesn't mean much). Secondly, Haaglanden was never known for its eccentrically tall buildings in the first place. It also lists only one source, which is quite dated (2014)." I can't find any fault with this argument, nor any sourcing indicating this list meets WP:NLIST/WP:GNG.

De-PROD'd with edit summary: could be recast as List of tallest buildings in The Hague

Not a finger has been lifted to actually attempt to do so, of course, and that's notwithstanding the GNG/NLIST issue requiring SIGCOV of the topic as a whole. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Doncram ( talk, contribs) 15:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Meets CLN/AOAL.  //  Timothy ::  talk  06:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 06:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Matt Dunnerstick

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

Clear WP:GNG fail. Was already deleted by a unanimous delete decision in 2011. No theoretical objection to a redirect to his sole film, only a practical concern: this film's entry was also deleted in 2011 and was also recreated over our community decision two years later. If Matt Dunnerstick is deleted again, please also salt. gidonb ( talk) 05:31, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) WJ94 ( talk) 09:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Chandan Madan

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

Chandan Madan

Stub biography of cricketer who does not satisfy cricket notability or general notability. There is nothing in this stub that describes significant coverage in a reliable source. The only reference is to a database source, and does not provide secondary coverage. The Heymann criterion is to find two reliable sources that provide secondary coverage within seven days. Robert McClenon ( talk) 04:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • The external links immediately leads me to this article and this one which would seem to fulfil the Heymann criteria immediately, yes? Perhaps the nom may wish to review these and consider whether they're sufficient or whether we have to drag this out for a week? Blue Square Thing ( talk) 05:35, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Keep on the basis of the links provided by Blue Square Thing. Appears to be a notable cricketer, evidence shows that they have played at the highest domestic levels. Playing for U19 indian team particularly persuasive as to notability. Jack4576 ( talk) 08:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per BST. Him playing for India Under-19s actually doesn't make him notable, had he solely played for them he would fail WP:NCRIC. Having played for senior domestic teams in India, and with the sources BST has found, he meets the inclusion criteria and GNG. StickyWicket ( talk) 17:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep From what we've got here, and the career he's had, I believe it likely that there would be enough in offline/non-English language sources for the article to be kept, albeit only just. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 19:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn‎. ✗ plicit 03:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The Gift (2007 TV program)

The Gift (2007 TV 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)

Does not appear to be notable. Nothing reliable found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2018.

PROD removed because it "may" meet WP:NTV, which is an essay not a policy or guideline. It did air 2 seasons, but I found nothing substantial for either season that would pass even WP:GNG. Sending it here for others to weigh in. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep Two seasons on Channel 9 at 9pm I think is sufficiently high profile that this subject is likely notable. Issue to me is the lack of references establishing those facts. In the absence of references my view is delete Jack4576 ( talk) 08:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I found a possible reference: https://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/the-screen-guide/t/the-gift-series/25904 Yours sincerely, TechGeek105 ( his talk page) 09:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 03:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Viral Hog

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

Unable to find any coverage that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH KH-1 ( talk) 03:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 23:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Maureen Sander-Staudt

Maureen Sander-Staudt (  | talk | history | 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 academic. No significant coverage, fails WP:NACADEMIC Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 01:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

There are three well-cited papers, after that not much. Looks like a WP:Too soon for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC). reply
I'd hazard a guess that her field is a low-citation one overall, but even taking that into account, I'm not seeing any indications that she stands out, rather than being an academic doing an academic's job. Philosophical Inquiries into Pregnancy has been reviewed [11] [12] [13], but that was a co-edited anthology. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Nothing to indicate that GNG has been met. The podcast listed above is an interview with Sander-Staudt, so not completely independent. And while she has some widely-cited work, this does not seem to me enough to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC. WJ94 ( talk) 16:36, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It may be useful to have this title or something similar as a redirect for search purposes, but multiple targets were suggested in the discussion with no takers. RL0919 ( talk) 04:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC) reply

List of Survivor (American TV series) winners

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

I have wondered whether the creator of this list is aware that I tried a failed attempt to create a draft of a (partial?) finalists list, which was rejected as "too arbitrary". Furthermore, I even asked the one who rejected the draft whether the finalists list's scope should be narrowed to only winners. Unfortunately, I was told that the list already exists at Survivor (American TV series)§Series overview. In other words, implicitly, a separate biographical list of winners isn't needed.

Seems to me this list is a response to recent individual AFD nominations on winners, like Bob Crowley and Natalie White. I can't help wonder whether this list meets WP:SAL and WP:BLP, and I wonder whether WP:BLP1E applies. Preferably, should be either deleted or draft-ified or redirected to the list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants or Survivor (American TV series). George Ho ( talk) 01:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC); expanded, 03:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. This does not preclude editorial discretion from being applied to move to draft, or rewrite. Stifle ( talk) 10:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Totalitarian architecture

AfDs for this article:
Totalitarian architecture (  | talk | history | 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 had an AfD nearly two years ago, which was closed with no consensus due to the possibility of there being non- WP:SYNTH information related to the topic. I am here to once again argue that no such information exists, and that this is better off being a redirect to fascist architecture or a disambiguation at most. As it exists, the page basically just argues that "totalitarian architecture" is an architecture that involves big buildings made by "totalitarian" governments. Practically all the sourcing is simply tertiary mentions, with no elaboration on what exactly this field of architecture is supposed to be. After these issues were brought up, the article was subject to a WP:REFBOMB, which did little to prove notability. Given that all the original issues of bad sourcing and synthesis exist, and that attempts in the past two years to prove notability have failed, I'm suggesting a redirect once again. Paragon Deku ( talk) 01:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and redirect to fascist architecture per comments in the previous AFD: this is a textbook case of original research via synthesis. I have reviewed the edits made in the two years since, and they don't add any new sources that weren't there at the time of the original AFD. I strongly encourage voters to review WP:SYNTH. Suppose someone made an article titled "Aus Architecture" that combined real, referenced facts about architecture of Austria, Australia, and Austin, Texas. You could get 100 references easily, but it's still synthesis: you'd need a source tying these disparate architecture strands together into a single topic. Actually, multiple sources. Architecture of Australia, Architecture of Austria, etc. are valid topics, but this container category is made-up. Well, that's exactly what this article is. Fascist architecture is a valid topic, Stalinist architecture is a valid topic, and this article awkwardly tries to make a joint topic that combines them. "Keep" votes in past AFDs have cited the term coming up in Google Scholar & Google Book searches, but when I actually inspected and read these references two years ago, they were almost always used strictly in the sense of Fascist Architecture, not in the sense of a joint Nazi-Italian Fascist-Soviet combined architecture style. It makes as much sense as democratic architecture or royalist architecture that tries to combine disparate styles that have nothing to do with other via the government involved. Now, per the previous AFD, there is one asterisk I have to point out: we do have one source that actually treats this topic in the way this Wikipedia article does, Igor Golomstock's Totalitarian Art, which does indeed use the term in the sense of a collective art style that stretches across all totalitarian governments, and seems to investigate the idea somewhat. Okay, fine. But... it's one book by one author on a topic where there are tens of thousands of books and tens of thousands of scholars. If Glomstock's book is really felt to be so incredibly relevant, make an article on just his book, first. Wikipedia should use the term the way that 90% of the actual sources use it - as a redirect to fascist architecture, which is really what is being talked about. SnowFire ( talk) 03:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I do not see any valid reason for deletion. This is a well-known and well-sourced subject. This page exists on 7 other languages. This is not a "WP:Coatrack": the concept of totalitarian architecture as a whole appear in currently cited references on the page (for example references #1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 14, 15, 20, 25, 28, 31, 36 and 37). Just having an AfD discussion in a past is not a reason for deletion. No, this article is not a WP:REFBOMB. Why it would be? Yes, Fascist architecture are Stalinist architecture are valid topics and they are also legitimate sub-pages of this page. My very best wishes ( talk) 04:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Per WP:DEL-CONTENT, [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, and per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And, we actually have sources that have discussed this topic, including "Totalitarianism, Architecture and Conscience", "Difficult Heritage: Various Approaches to Twentieth-Century Totalitarian Architecture", "The Constituent Power of Architecture", as well as many, many more articles and books that have been published. This is also not simply equivalent to fascist architecture, as alleged by SnowFire above, as academics point out totalitarian architecture as having been created by Communist governments ( Here's whole article on this very connection). The claim that that no such information exists about a well-documented topic is denialism at worst, and a failure to conduct a WP:BEFORE at best. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
As discussed previously, this would just be refbombing. You can find perfectly similar sources on architecture and black Americans, architecture and democracy, architecture and feminism, etc etc etc. None of these would indicate that such things as Black Architecture, Democratic Architecture, or Feminist architecture actually exist as their own independent disciplines. As with any other art form, architecture is often viewed in the context of its creation (or creators), but that doesn’t mean it can be verified as its own discipline. This is always just a synthesis play that ignores the context of sources and ends up making an incomprehensible slurry of unrelated info. Paragon Deku ( talk) 07:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
This is an argument that the title is wrong, not that there is no notable subject here. Of course Architecture and feminism is a notable topic; so many sources discuss it, and I hope to see that redlink turn to blue. When one encounters an article about the intersection of architecture and feminism, but objects to the title of "feminist architecture", the way to change that is to make a move request, not to try to delete the article for failing to have a perfect title. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Feminism and modern architecture is the page, for the record. And this isn't simply an issue with the title- the entire article as it exists is arguing that a specific architectural style of totalitarian regimes and therefore a school of architecture is extant. If we were to make a page on architecture and totalitarianism, it would have to be an entirely separate page, because the content of the page as it exists is bunk. Paragon Deku ( talk) 02:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - there are many published academic papers and books on this topic, with coverage of socialist and other regimes. Therefore a redirect to Fascist architecture seems like a busted flush and a contradiction in terms. That said the page needs more work and likely considerable cleanup to refocus onto examples of architecture and away from puff (for example quotes from Orwell in his novel don't add anything IMO). As it stands, I think the page would likely be more informative with 90% less text and perhaps splitting up by country. I don't envy those taking on the challenge - which looks difficult to me, but an encyclopedic concept. JMWt ( talk) 05:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC) I am now persuaded by the arguments below (which were eventually written in a way that I could understand) by PaulT2022 that there should be WP:TNT and/or sent to Draft because this is a mess that doesn't properly represent the sources that exist. Which is a shame - I can see there's been quite an effort to get it to this stage. JMWt ( talk) 16:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • WP:TNT My view on this has evolved since the last discussion. The article as it stands is a mess of WP:SYNTH probably due to refbombing during the last AfD and includes many irrelevant sources. There is something icky about the way sources are being used to present this as a settled architectural style and idea when actually most of the academic secondary sources seem to be saying "is this really an architectural style?" (see Hokerberg: Although we must dismiss the idea of specific totalitarian architectural styles...; A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture: Supposedly the officially approved architecture of...; Mijolla-Mellor & Tuncel Et peut-on parler d’une architecture qui portera des éléments stylistiques qu’on pourrait définir en tant que « totalitaires »?) Other academic sources devolve into strange psychogeography which I don't know how to treat (see Barshack Totalitarian architecture does not allow for interpretation as a mode of contemplating the collective body which assumes its distance from the social, a mode of contemplating the dead which presupposes their relegation to a separate realm). I cannot take seriously any opinion that references that bizarre 70s Tony Ward article about American prison architecture (unless they haven't read it which is another reason not to take them seriously).
However, reference works (listed below) do make use of the term totalitarian architecture. The article as it currently stands does not reflect at all how the term is used in sources. So, in true totalitarian style, I propose we completely bulldoze this article and build a grand article in its place.
I think this is a good point - there's a general feeling in the article that suggests totalitarian regimes build Brutalist architecture - and possibly leaves open the suggestion that Brutalism is an indication of fascism and/or totalitarian thinking.
I'm no historian of buildings, but that seems to me to be far from true. Maybe the concept is just too difficult to write neutrally about (unanswerable questions including what counts as totalitarian, which buildings are examples of that etc). JMWt ( talk) 10:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
No, this article just uses word "brutalist" in one example because one of the sources uses such word, but it does not claim that Brutalist architecture belongs to totalitarian architecture because it does not. I just removed this single word from the page. It did not matter. My very best wishes ( talk) 13:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
It may be true that totalitarian architecture is not a distinct architectural style, but it should not be. We need to have a distinct subject described in multiple RS. A subject could be anything, not necessarily a style. My very best wishes ( talk) 13:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
WP:TNT argues that if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. There is non-trivial well-referenced useful content in the existing article, so I think that the appeal to TNT as a basis for deleting the whole article entirely is wholly self-defeating. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Yeah I basically don't think there is anything useful to keep (bar a handful of sources) so my logic is fine. As other editors have noted, when you start actually reading the sources (not just the titles) and comparing it to the text they support, it falls apart. Sources are often of dubious reliable (Psychogeography, a paper on Nazi Architecture from a Materials Sci & Eng conference, political org websites), don't properly reflect the text they support and are taken out of context (eg sources about Nazism or Communism & architecture are used to make statements about all "totalitarian architecture"). It will take ages to sort through the current article and likely very little will be retained. Whereas starting afresh will generate an article that reflects reliable sources and is more likely to attract someone like me to work on it.
Seeing the conversations above, I think a move to Totalitarianism and architecture would be productive and a better reflection of sources. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 02:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply

*Keep I am 100% sure this was a topic in my high school study books, and those were, all things considered, not exactly the most inclusive of sources. I don't for a moment believe too little has been written about this topic to support an article on it, and a swift google books/scholar search does seem to support that conclusion. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 15:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I kindly suggest you review the arguments above as to why Google scholar hits of the words “totalitarian” and “architecture” can get hits without actually demonstrably being its own architectural style. Paragon Deku ( talk) 17:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Hmmm, I don't think it needs to be a style to be E, but I agree with you that it's not a style, and the lead part of the article is currently about a style. So there's a bit of an incongruence in my !vote. The body is a discussion of how the sources use it again, in contradiction to the lead, but it does so in a manner that is very much WP:SYNTH.
I concur. TNT it is, per Vladimir.copic. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 20:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Well, like I said, references #1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 14, 15, 20, 25, 28, 31, 36 and 37 on the page are about the subject of “totalitarian architecture”, not random hits of words “totalitarian” and “architecture” in Google. My very best wishes ( talk) 04:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Move to draft and rewrite, per the WP:TNT rationale of Vladimir.copic. BD2412 T 19:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per my comments in the prior AfD, and the refs I and others found. The topic is notable. The article likely needs improvement, but I don't see what would be so bad here that it would merit a TNT. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Move to draft. The article combines a range of sources talking about "totalitarian architecture" in different contexts to synthesise a new meaning. In the current form, the article advocates the idea that "totalitarian architecture" is a commonly accepted term for a defined architectural style, whereas many sources argue against it (see Vladimir.copic rationale above). This includes sources used and referenced in the article. For example:
Adam - On the whole, the architecture of the Third Reich closely followed... the architecture of the past... by no means exclusive to Germany or to totalitarian systems, it was the official style of many countries
Sablin - If we were not talking about an article, but a concise response to a question (posed during a survey of some specialists or just enthusiasts) that is placed in the title - whether architecture can be totalitarian at all, I would probably limit myself to the statement that there was definitely no specific architecture of totalitarianism and there couldn't have been. (ChatGPT translation).
I removed two instances of apparent original research that weren't supported by the cited sources, but the overall state of the article leaves an impression that it requires a near-complete rewrite. PaulT2022 ( talk) 08:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Oh no, first source is RS and it says: "In 2017, just before a Polish law came into force banning monuments that “symbolize or propagate” totalitarianism...", hence the connection to the subject of the page is clear. Monuments and memorials are buildings, and they do belong to certain architecture. Sablin [14] criticizes the usage of term "totalitarian architecture", any valid criticism of the term too belongs to the page. My very best wishes ( talk) 22:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I agree with Sablin criticizes the usage of term "totalitarian architecture", but this is not what the text referenced to Sablin that I removed from the article was saying.
Monuments and memorials are buildings, and they do belong to certain architecture. is original research. I couldn't find a single mention of demolished buildings or totalitarian architecture in either of the sources. This argument is exactly the kind of synthesis other editors expressed concerns about: "because there are monuments, and some monuments are memorials, and memorials are buildings, therefore monuments are architecture; monuments build by totalitarian states are therefore totalitarian architecture". PaulT2022 ( talk) 22:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Oh no, this source [15] provides a number of specific examples. Sablin - agree with removal, but simply because this is strange source with broken link. My very best wishes ( talk) 01:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Move to draft and rewrite. This feels like a synth-heavy essay that takes myriad mentions of "totalitarian architecture" and retrofits them into an encyclopedic article about a supposedly settled style. That said, it does seem to be a valid topic of discussion (for instance, it does have a coherent entry in Oxford Reference), so I don't think it should be totally bulldozed.-- Gen. Quon [Talk] 13:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment. Making "draft" will be equal to deletion because the creator of this page is no longer active and no one else will be working with the draft. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I would be willing to work on a draft. Paragon Deku ( talk) 18:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
But it was you who nominated this page for deletion. Does it mean you are changing your opinion to "rewrite"? My very best wishes ( talk) 22:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
No, but if that is the consensus, I would be willing. Paragon Deku ( talk) 04:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia main building, one of seven enormous Stalinist piles in Moscow
  • Keep, there are more than enough sources, including many of those cited in the article, to demonstrate that this easily-recognisable approach to architecture has long been recognised by architects and historians. Cities such as Moscow are indeed littered with enormous, conspicuous examples, but there are plenty in other countries, recording Fascist as well as Communist aspirations, and widely described as such by reliable sources. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 14:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
It would be helpful to provide a source that supports this point of view directly.
In the sources I'm aware of, the Seven Sisters, which are being used as as an example, are inevitably described as being distinct from the "easily-recognisable approach to architecture":

The government decree issued in 1947 to start construction ordered that the buildings look uniquely Russian. So the décor is Russian baroque, even if various American landmarks heavily influenced the architects, including the Wrigley Building and the Tribune Tower in Chicago, as well as the Woolworth and Municipal buildings in Lower Manhattan.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/29/world/europe/russia-stalin-moscow-seven-sisters.html
Is there indeed a source that would argue that this is the same style as, say, Fascist architecture, which Wikipedia currently describes as "Fascist styles often resemble that of ancient Rome, but can extend to modern aesthetics as well. Fascist-era buildings are frequently constructed with particular concern given to symmetry and simplicity"? PaulT2022 ( talk) 21:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I think this is an interesting point. I wonder if it impacts on the viability of this article.
The article as it stands defines totalitarian architecture as being architecture associated with totalitarian regimes.
I'm not sure if this is your point or not, however it appears that the term (or closely associated terms) can refer to something else in general use. Maybe the "totalitarian" part can refer to a particular type of building wherever it is in the world. Or perhaps it can refer to a type of architect mentality as per this article. Other refs which do not seem to fit with the thrust of this article include 1.
I don't know how to parse this. Can one have "totalitarian architecture" in London or Sydney or Columbus, Ohio? If the answer is 'no', what's the difference between this article and Nazi architecture or whatever? JMWt ( talk) 10:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Precisely. I didn't suggest deleting only because of the Red-tailed Hawk arguments in this discussion: there are sources that indicate that such framing might be notable, and a few non-trivial sources are referenced in this article.
For example, Ward (1970) discusses the purpose of totalitarian architecture and the role of an architect in a totalitarian country. He discusses parallels in how totalitarian architecture seeks to subdue and how totalitarian approaches to architecture are present in democratic societies, which is echoed in the Guardian column you found. There are various discussions of the 'totalitarian' role of the architect, and indeed, Corbusier's ideas. Then, there are sources that discuss the top-down approach of Haussmann's renovation of Paris (although most, I think, stop short of calling it totalitarian), and how these ideas were borrowed by totalitarian urban planning - see Cavalcanti (1992) referenced in the article; also, Urban planning in Nazi Germany.
I think the sources can be used to write a good article discussing the motives and purposes of totalitarian architecture, the role of the architect, approaches to urban planning, and so forth. Unfortunately, none of this is in the article, which mainly advocates for the existence of a supposed "style", a notion not supported or explicitly challenged by the referenced sources. I've proposed draftifying because the current content of the article is primarily synthesis and it requires a near-complete rewrite. PaulT2022 ( talk) 15:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • According to cited sources and the page, this is a specific type of architecture in totalitarian states. Therefore, no, anything in London or Sydney or Columbus, Ohio would not qualify as such architecture. Accordingly, this page does not mention anything in London, Sydney or Columbus. Le Corbusier is indeed important for this page because of his Moscow projects, i.e. he was one of creators of such architecture. But it does not mean that all architecture by Le Corbusier was totalitarian. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I'm not arguing with you but I offer the following from the reference I found above
    - “Oslo, Moscow, Berlin, Paris, Algiers, Port Said, Rio or Buenos Aires, the solution is the same,” Le Corbusier maintained, “since it answers the same needs.”
    JMWt ( talk) 18:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
What "solution" he is talking about? Does he call it "totalitarian architecture"? I am sure he did not mean that. Saying that, we do have page Le Corbusier in the USSR, which does belong here. My very best wishes ( talk) 19:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • WP:TNT per Vladimir.copic. While apparently well-sourced, I don't think this article adequately reflects any of the ways that the term "totalitarian architecture" is used in the literature. It certainly doesn't give the impression (as it ought to) that the concept is contested. All I see in the article as it stands is thinly veiled WP:OR. So, blow it up! Aquaticonions ( talk) 16:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Just to clarify, this page correctly defines the totalitarian architecture (first phrase) as "a type of architecture ... approved by ... governments of totalitarian regimes, intended to strengthen and spread their ideology". This is a variety of culture serving propaganda. Just as Socialist realism, it does not exists outside of such political systems. My very best wishes ( talk) 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
As about the article not giving "the impression... that the concept is contested" - yes, this is true. This is simply because there are few to none RS where the concept was contested. If you can provide such sources, then they need to be included on the page. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –  Joe ( talk) 10:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Impose (magazine)

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

Apparently non-notable. The Flavorwire page mentions Impose but mostly talks about Evers separately from his work there, the New Yorker EL is an ad for a concert, and the KC Pitch ( archive) might not even be a reliable source. Found no other coverage about the magazine itself.

PROD was rejected due to the number of incoming links but I don't find that a particularly compelling case. Just because a source is used in 500 articles doesn't mean it is itself notable. Notability and reliability are separate standards, no? Same argument from before still applies entirely. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 13:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Music. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 13:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Lack of sourcing about the magazine, plenty of sources about things being "imposed". It might be a RS, but without any sort of critical discussion of it, we can't have an article. Oaktree b ( talk) 13:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: A Google Books search shows it being cited in several dozens of publications (those by the Oxford University Press, Springer, Taylor & Francis, among others) so it is easily a commonly used, reliable source (meeting #1 and #4 of WP:NPERIODICAL). If it is used on 500 Wikipedia pages as a reliable source, common sense dictates it should probably have a page itself. (Sources about niche, but reputable sources rarely exist; but such pages are important for the encyclopedia in a meta sense.) Why? I Ask ( talk) 14:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. There does not appear to be significant coverage of this topic as it is defined in WP:GNG. One of the sources cited in this article, the last reference, looks like it could very well count towards notability. (There's a paywall, so I didn't see entire source). But there would need to be multiple sources like this in order to meet GNG. - Hannahthom7 ( talk) 17:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply
    Periodicals (and professors) have slightly different notability requirements in which we often don't necessarily base it fully on the existence of sources directly discussing them. We base it on how much they're cited in scholarly sources. Why? I Ask ( talk) 18:40, 25 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:05, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - Notability policy should appreciate it is important that we have information available to readers on widely-used sources used including those used by Wikipedia. ~ Kvng ( talk) 13:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 00:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Notified: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#AfD_notice. QuietHere ( talk | contributions) 01:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 ( talk) 00:50, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Salman Muqtadir

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

Non notable Youtuber. Didn’t received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. All of sources are interview (primary) or passing mentions and also promotional. Fails WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 05:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Agreed with you. Hrksmp ( talk) 09:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Weak keep, some celebrity coverage in RS, I think there's enough for a notability !vote [16], [17] and [18] Oaktree b ( talk) 13:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Comment: WP:DAILYSTAR in relation to 3rd link. DhakaTribune articles demonstrate notability though. Jack4576 ( talk) 14:41, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Delete Per nom. Not enough sources to support notability. Sources found are very weak. Don’t Get Hope And Give Up — Preceding undated comment added 08:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - only references are social media or local news media from Dhaka. Willing to change my mind with more, contradicting evidence. Bearian ( talk) 17:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • keep - Has persistent coverage in national media enough to pass notability guidelines. More sources are available, and the article should be expanded and improved. Deletion is not clean-up. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 05:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Keep articles from Dhaka Tribune from Oaktree b pursuade me as to notability. Jack4576 ( talk) 14:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Some of the cited sources seems sufficient in establishing notability. But the article certainly needs more improvement, since none of the sources supported the claims on his participation in dramas and enrollment in North South University. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 05:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle ( talk) 10:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Jesús Urbina

Jesús Urbina (  | talk | history | 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 former football player which fails WP:GNG. No sign of notability from a google search Thesixserra ( talk) 04:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Thesixserra ( talk) 04:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:29, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - @ Thesixserra:, If you search up Yair Urbina (the name he goes by) portero (Spanish for goalie) on Google, you get a lot of Spanish results. Has made 143+ appearances in the fully pro Liga MX and Ascenso MX. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 13:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    @ Das osmnezz The article needs WP:SIGCOV, is there any in those Spanish results? Alvaldi ( talk) 16:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Looks like a possible keep to me, there is prose on the Spanish wiki, but no sources and generic sourcing on other wiki's. However I don't see it too much at the moment, however, before on the these articles, Spanish/Mexican sources are found online with the right search engines, google is pretty useless here. Govvy ( talk) 20:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Das Osmnezz, over 100 appearances in the Mexican top division and coverage including this and this (there will be better stuff found by Spanish speakers). Giant Snowman 22:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Govvy:, See above. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 03:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Happy to withdraw my nomination if someone comes up with reliable sources from any language that helps to meet GNG. Thesixserra ( talk) 03:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    Did you only check Google, User:Thesixserra? Surely a player going this far back, should be checked in Proquest. Nfitz ( talk) 04:09, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Thesixserra:, GiantSnowman provided some above... not to mention that there are many many others besides those ones... clearly was significant figure in Mexican football with 143+ appearances in the fully pro Liga MX and Ascenso MX. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 07:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. There is no significant coverage in the article and despite claims of WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, only two sources have been presented in the AfD and neither is a significant coverage Of the two, [19] is a single response from an interview with no significant prose regarding the subject and [20] is a minor story about him potentially being recalled from a loan. I am more than happy to change my !vote if sources are found. Alvaldi ( talk) 09:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I did a search in Proquest like @ Nfitz suggested (good call!) and came up with one source of sigcov, a 2012 article from Notimex that covers his career up to that point. There are about 400 hits and I went through the first 50. The rest I found was the normal brief mentions, match reports, interviews etc. It still needs more sources to pass the multiple sources threshold and unfortunately I don't have the time to go through the rest and do the work that the article's creator should've done in the first place. However, if somebody else has the time and comes up with a significant source (from some other publication than Notimex), ping me. Alvaldi ( talk) 09:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Medio Tiempo has an article from 2011 that is similar to the Notimex article from 2012. It seems like a routine transfer announcement, but it doesn't appear to be entirely derivative of a club press release and has a decent career recap. I'd like to see something else that is in-depth, but this could be a close call. Jogurney ( talk) 01:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
@ Jogurney:, [21] ("Yair Urbina was signed by Dorados de Sinaloa in the recent DRAFT, but he will play with a double record in the Mexican soccer affiliate system, this is how Urbina will seek to start the season in competition with Adrián Zermeño, who in theory would be the first option to replace Saucedo at the start of the season against Atlas. Urbina, 30, was in Veracruz last season, before that he was key with Neza for his consolidation in the Promotion League. Reflexes, maturity and security in the exits characterize this goalkeeper who will receive an opportunity in the First Division after passing through Tigres and Morelia not to mention some First Clubs") and [22], among many many more Spanish sources should easily push him over the line. Clearly was significant figure in Mexican football with 143+ appearances in the fully pro Liga MX and Ascenso MX. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz ( talk) 07:09, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
I'm still looking for coverage, but let's not confuse people about the level of this footballer's career. He's played just 5 minutes (1 substitute's appearance) in Liga MX. Most of his play has been in the Ascenso MX and Copa MX (far lower profile competitions). Jogurney ( talk) 14:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete No significant coverage as per WP:SPORTBASIC 128.6.36.94 ( talk) 20:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete - I've tried to find significant coverage online, and I'm just not seeing it. There are a few sources that note his Primera debut with Tigres, but the coverage is pretty superficial. The rest of the coverage is generally post-match interviews, interviews about potential transfers/loans/loan recalls and transfer announcements/speculation. A few such at the Notimex and Medio Tiempo sources noted above (and an Atiempo source) contain brief recaps of his career, but they are not in-depth in my opinion. I think if Urbina had played more than 5 minutes in the Primera/Liga MX, we might find a lot more, but he's just a second/third division player. Jogurney ( talk) 02:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources in article and above are promo or brief mentions in routine sports news, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. WP:BLP states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources"'; BLPs need IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability per well known core policy ( WP:V and WP:BLP) and guidelines ( WP:BIO and WP:IS, WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV).  //  Timothy ::  talk  04:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Several good, though brief, sources have been provided above. And there's more that are similar. I think WP:BASIC is met, with the sum of all these references, from many publications. But digging deeper into Proquest, there's significant GNG coverage way back in 2004, when he was with Tigres ProQuest  315779582! GNG is met ... and it's a BEFORE failure - a Proquest search is critical for Latin American players, especially from the early 2000s. Nfitz ( talk) 03:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    The portion of the El Norte article I can see indicates it is an injury report - nothing approaching in-depth coverage. Can you access more than the first two paragraphs? If so, what else does the article cover? Jogurney ( talk) 02:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    The article is 11 paragraphs and 400 words - primarily discussing the injury. And no, 400-word injury reports are not routine! There's a dozen or so more El Norte articles from that time period - which is hardly surprising for the backup keeper on one of the top teams in the continent - even with only one start. We can all access Proquest through Wikipedia library. Nfitz ( talk) 02:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –  Joe ( talk) 10:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Lunar Society Moonstones

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

Redirect to Lunar Society of Birmingham. A WP:Before search wasn't very helpful to find GNG-level sources. There were a couple of attempts to convert this to a redirect, but they were reverted. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 03:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Lunar Society of Birmingham; emphasis on the lack of encyclopedia-worthy sources, copyvio issue, and gallery-like format/structure, looks like a page more fit for something like TripAdvisor or a travel blog. Spiritual Transcendence ( talk) 05:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Vote changed to keep per the recently-added sources Spiritual Transcendence ( talk) 01:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There is no copyvio - the article predates the alleged source, which plagiarizes us. This is a significant public artwork and landmark by a significant sculptor. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, have added a good source and, per Pigsonthewing, the artwork's and sculptor's significance are apparent. Glad there is no copyright, although the website giving credit to Wikipedia writers for its textual presentation would be nice. Randy Kryn ( talk) 11:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, as it is now. What's the actual policy-based argument for deletion? Btw, a simple "redirect" is wrong here, if there is nothing at the target article. Johnbod ( talk) 12:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    I thought it was implicit, but maybe I should have been clearer. The article didn't meet WP:GNG (since it was unsourced), and in my opinion, still doesn't meet the GNG criteria of having multiple independent RS. - MPGuy2824 ( talk) 06:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I see no good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or if deemed appropriate Redirect as nominator suggests. The article references are 'interesting'. The Lunar Society one is a circular reference to this Wikipedia article. The Public Sculpture of Birmingham book was published in 1998, yet the article states the sculpture wasn't unveiled until 1999. No page number has been placed in the citation. The reference seems to me 'suspect'. I've gone through the book and found nothing on these stones. In fact, the Introduction to the book begins with "Birmingham in 1996 has over 370 works of sculpture in the public domain" and adds that "the pieces date from 1709 to 1996", suggesting the material included only went up to 1996. I've checked for later editions of the book but haven't come across any.
Until appropriate sourcing is added to the article or put up for consideration in this AfD, the policy based ground for deletion is that the article doesn't pass any notability guideline. Rupples ( talk) 00:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  • Keep / Comment The related 2005 book Public Sculpture of Staffordshire and the Black Country does mention them as "the Lunar Society Monument designed by Steve Field in Great Barr, Birmingham (1998)" as part of the entry on Michael Scheuermann (p. 284). I agree that I don't find a mention of them in Public Sculpture of Birmingham (at least the version available via Internet Archive). There is by the same author a Birmingham Sculpture Trails book (2008), which may discuss them, but I can't locate a copy to review. I did turn up two local newsclippings [23] [24] from when sculptures were unveiled. There were other 2011/2012 stories about development in the area that mention the stones in passing. Beyond that, I do see mention of them in the context of the people memorialized on them (for example, in Secret Black Country, no page numbers, but with a photo of the Keir stone), they're included in local heritage tours, and they have been mentioned by the Birmingham Conservation Trust. These are clearly verifiable and appear to be at least locally notable, even if gold-standard sources aren't readily turning up. — Carter (Tcr25) ( talk) 21:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Bible College NIT

Bible College NIT (  | talk | history | 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 search for sources could not find any indepth coverage in third party sources to meet GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar ( talk) 00:22, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Effingham-Teutopolis Christmas Classic

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

Don't see how this "High School holiday basketball tournament" meets GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar ( talk) 00:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_May_10&oldid=1156469620"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE