Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 24 March 26 >

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yesterday (time)

Yesterday (time) (  | talk | history | 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 should be deleted as per WP:DICDEF, and converted into a {{ Soft redirect}} to the Wiktionary definition. The article's content currently consists of a dictionary definition, and a brief touch upon its usage in learning and language. Sources that could be added are flooded out with things named due to the word, but not about the concept itself. Furthermore, as the article itself states, the concept of "yesterday" in time is abstract, and far too broad for a dedicated article, and could reasonably be discussed in spin-off articles, e.g Yesterday in fiction, Yesterday in philosophy, etc. If this nomination passes, I intend to nominate Tomorrow (time) alongside it, since the same rationale applies with that article as well. I'm not opposed to a potential merger of Yesterday and Tomorrow as an alternative to deletion. Bandit Heeler ( talk) 23:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Science, and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's not just a dicdef. It includes much more information. It can be improved, but that is not for WP:AfD. Bearian ( talk) 17:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The information is hardly "much more". As I said, it consists of a dictionary definition, and a very brief touch upon its usage in learning and language. I am aware that Afd is not clean-up. Bandit Heeler ( talk) 21:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'd strongly urge adding Tomorrow (time) to the current AFD instead of waiting for this one to finish, as it's essentially an identical case. I tend to lean delete here, but there is some potential information that might go beyond a dicdef -- namely, some sort of comparison of how different languages denote relative time. But what's here is pretty slight, and would probably be better off in some other article dedicated to that topic (I'm not sure if there is one, or how well one could be carved out though). Also, the Tomorrow article has a note on children's understanding of the term at different ages, but again, that's probably better off at some sort of article about child psychology and time, or something like that. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 05:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Certainly not a WP:DICDEF. Bhivuti45 ( talk) 10:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Very useful discussion about the hesternal tense, not a WP:DICDEF by any means. Contributor892z ( talk) 18:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: not a WP:DICDEF, and we still have " today" and " tomorrow", so either recommended a massive delete under this reason (which I'd oppose) or leave yesterday alone. FuzzyMagma ( talk) 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment - all of the 'keep' votes thus far have consisted of some variation of 'not a WP:DICDEF', not based in policy (just saying 'not a DICDEF' without explaining why is not an argument), and not countering the fact that I already mentioned it's only a brief touch on other subjects. I haven't seen anything compelling indicating that this is a WP:WORDISSUBJECT, otherwise I would have withdrawn the nomination at this point. The fact that someone considers the one sentence mention of the hesternal tense 'useful' is not a policy based argument and is purely subjective. ( WP:USEFUL). Bandit Heeler ( talk) 17:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Miguel Mies

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

Sources used are all primary: either interviews quoting him, his profiles on university websites, or even his research articles. His personal website lists multiple media appearances, but they are all either interviews or articles by his university, so no independent secondary sources here. The best sources could be this one which repeatedly quotes Mies on his research and even has a paragraph quoting a researcher critical of Mies' work, and this one which discusses his team's research in detail and briefly quotes him. However, neither seems to rise to the level of a full secondary source significantly covering him.
The only other things found in a quick WP:BEFORE are, comparatively, not very interesting: a mention as contributor in a book in Google Books, more databases [1] [2] [3] [4], a team presentation and his research articles on Google Scholar. Nothing close to establishing notability. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 22:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's helpful to share sources that can help establish notability but it is unrealistic to list 34 as if participants have the time to check each one. User:Weitkemp can you narrow that down to 3 or 4 that best illustrate your argument to Keep this article? And while it doesn't really matter when an article subject received their PhD, it is more likely that an academic would have receive sufficient coverage when they have progressed further in their career.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Nowhere near a pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC). reply
  • Keep per above arguments. Meets WP:PROF as it stands - I think deletionists should get a consensus to deprecate Point #7 of WP:NPROF. Otherwise, academics like Mies are notable if they are widely cited in the mainstream media as an expert. Academics from Brazil are just as notable as those from the U.S. Also, RE to Liz, WP:GNG is not mandatory for academics. 89.23.224.133 ( talk) 22:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear where this discussion stands now that the nominator is arguing to Keep this article but hasn't withdrawn their nomination. With some editors advocating Delete, it wouldn't lead to a Speedy Keep here but it might make a difference in how editors are viewing the nom's argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Premalatha Vijayakanth

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

General Secretary of unrepresented party, previously stood for election. Fails WP:NPOL. News coverage seems to primarily be about her husband, and the party in the context of the upcoming election. AusLondonder ( talk) 23:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Per nomination. Non-elected politician without constitutional office, fails WP:NPOL. General Secretary role in an unrepresented party is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Sk1728 ( talk) 11:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per WP:NPOL. Notable largely for being the wife of a notable person. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 12:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL. -- Devoke water 01:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails NPOL. Bhivuti45 ( talk) 10:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this wikipage has just been redirected to Premallatha Vijayakant this page needs to be deleted too -- Devoke water 16:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

F-WUAB (Airbus A300B4-203)

F-WUAB (Airbus A300B4-203) (  | talk | history | 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 aircraft. All three sources, one of which is unreliable, are just passing mentions and do not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There is no evidence why the 238th aircraft is notable. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and merge - This article is new, and I suggest that someone update the article to have more significant coverage or even merge it with the A300B1 in preservation into one article. 14.201.100.184 ( talk) 00:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I’ve merged the content 14.201.100.184 ( talk) 00:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    And I've undone it.
    There should be a consensus decision, to my understanding, before things like this are done.
    I undid all three. The page you merged them into just passed AfC as a disambiguation page specifically.
    Also, notes about deletion discussions on articles shouldn't just be removed. Please wait for consensus when there's a discussion about what should happen.
    ((Meanwhile, I know nothing about airplanes, so I have no vote on that matter. Now I'm off to fix the ref names b/c those articles "merging" caused a huge problem.)) OIM20 ( talk) 06:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per GNG. Bhivuti45 ( talk) 10:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

College of International Education

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

This article has clearly been created only for the purposes of promoting the organisation. It is clearly not notable - there are no articles online about it I can find. It seems to be largely sourced from the CIE website itself, or unsourced. DansterTheManster ( talk) 17:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, I totally agree. The organization seems completely unimportant in the scheme of things and surely not deserving of an article. Gnilhtrae ( talk) 17:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 11:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Darkstalkers characters

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

Less than a week ago, I merged the contents of this list into Darkstalkers#Characters after condensing it down. However, Zxcvbnm objected, citing the previous AfD's consensus.

However, I'm not arguing overlying notability for the characters as a whole separate of the franchise (which is a concern on its own vs reception for individual characters, but I digress), but instead that the list itself does not need to be a separate entity. As you can see from the link above, it fits perfectly inside the series article, without making it too large, the key concerns for such a split here normally.

I don't feel in its current form a massive list is necessary, and I don't forsee it getting expanded further (the last new character added was Dee in 2005, almost 20 years ago). As it stands, there's no need for a separate article to compound our already overflowing list problem. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 19:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

EDIT: For the sake of transparency, this was the version of the list's page prior to reorganizing, which not only included excessive detail randomly, but also random gameplay bits, trivial reception from past merges, and some very questionable sources (EventHubs, "Flying Omelette"?). The goal of the original reduction was to aim closer to more streamlined lists, and then cite any information as needed. This got interrupted mid-cleanup efforts.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Assuming no information is being lost, I am not opposed to a merge to Darkstalkers#Characters. Captain Galaxy 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 2: Electric Boogaloo Similar to the last AfD, deletion is not cleanup and there's no particular reason a character list should not exist, as these sorts of articles are VERY well established on Wikipedia. It was shown that the article can certainly stand on its own if improved, as the cast of Darkstalkers is one of the more well-known in video game history. "Overflowing list problem" is a personal opinion and it's impossible to tell whether or not it will be improved, as you are no fortune-teller. That's simply a WP:NOEFFORT argument. If you really want to see it fixed, your time's better spent fixing it than arguing it should be removed. See also WP:BEBOLD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Zx your argument falls into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because "other articles" are established does not mean that one cannot be merged. This not a "No Effort" approach or a lack of "Being Bold", that's an honest observation from someone that has put a fair share of research into this subject. Additionally this is not an attempt at "cleanup" but to make an argument that the list itself does not need to be separate from the parent, which is fair game for AfD to determine consensus. So I will ask that you assume some good faith, and to not be rude.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 22:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    It does not fall under OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because I am not arguing this article should be kept because it's the same as another particular article. I said that this TYPE of article is common, which implies it is typical under Wikipedia policy. Unless you are arguing that all character lists should not exist, which is not really an issue to be decided in a single AfD, but something like RfC. I didn't mean to marginalize the effort you put into the merger, but cutting something down tends to be easier than building it up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    It does feel like the argument fits into a form of OTHERSTUFF, because the argument's being made that similar lists are considered "acceptable" on their own on wikipedia, which is debatable on a case by case basis. And I feel significant effort was done to maintain the reader has an understanding of each character in the context of the franchise. If all the information is retained in the series article as it is in the list, how is any information lost?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This makes the other article too long if put there. Having it separate makes it more readable. Kung Fu Man made the article in October 2008‎. It was far longer through most of its existence. In December 2023, Kung Fu Man reduced it from 84K to 15K. [43] 104 references down to 7. I think some of the referenced information where reliable sources talked about the characters should be included. Also the overview chart showing which games had which notable characters should've been kept. Dream Focus 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Most of the refs appear to have shuffled off to standalone character articles so no information appears to have been lost. —  Masem ( t) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      There is only one standalone character article, Morrigan Aensland, the rest are just redirects to here. Kung Fu Man seems to have merged them over here last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Baby_Bonnie_Hood&diff=1154824604&oldid=1154823810 Dream Focus 21:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      Given KFM's work on character articles and cleaning up bad sourcing, I trust that these trims and removal of sources followed in line with eliminating sources that barely touched on the subject, along with excessive primary sourcing. This judging from a scan of the ore trimmed version and where sources were used. Masem ( t) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      I will say that I would have objected more to the mergers of the various characters if I knew that the character list was set to be merged too. Moving them all to a list is due weight. Moving them all to the series article is undue weight. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      This is an important point that bears a lot of scrutiny. Non-transparently planning to eliminate content via repeated mergers is arguably tendentious editing. You want 'em all gone? Fine: nominate them all. Don't merge them all editorially... and then force a re-merge in AfD so there's very little left. Jclemens ( talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      This, plus many perfectly reliable sources demonstrating WP:LISTN were purged from the character list for some reason and I frankly have no clue why they were removed, with the only thing I can think of being to make the article seem less notable for a deletion or merge. Why purge the character list from HG101, or GamesRadar? It makes no sense; this is literally a list of characters from the game, so it's absolutely relevant. I tried to add a bit back in, but I'm of half a mind to revert the article gutting entirely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      You know, considering that you had just previously took umbrage over the implication that you were applying double standards based on whether an article whose notability is being questioned is one you made or not, I find it kind of distasteful to go around and suggest an editor in good standing is, in essence, intentionally doing harm to the project for nefarious purposes. I don't think it's right to show such offense over that if you do not extend the same level of courtesy to other users. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 09:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Policy and guidelines argue against unnecessary splits of material, and the nom demonstrates that a merged article is nowhere close to a size problem where a split would be required. Add that there are no non-primary sources, and that supports including the content in the main article to avoid notability issues with the list. Zxcvbnm's argument amounts to a form of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; character lists like this with minimal sourcing are tolerated but I would not consider them widely accepted. Masem ( t) 21:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Speedy Keep The topic of "List of X characters" is "X" so as long as Darkstalkers exists List of Darkstalkers characters is not subject to deletion on notability grounds. NOTINHERITED doesn't apply, because this is the same topic covered in multiple articles. Now, if things fail V or NOR, that's a different issue, but usually one that can be addressed by editing rather than deletion. More to the point: of all the problems in Wikipedia, who thinks that collapsing character lists into their franchises is in the top 10? Jclemens ( talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Clemens, not a single thing there addressed my argument.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 22:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    You're right, I suppose. What precise DEL#REASON applies? Jclemens ( talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Content fork in this case: the information here can fit inside the series article without a loss of material, and stuff like development and reception would apply just as much to the series as the list. No information would be lost, and no need to keep them separate. Articles can still be spun out from the series page just fine also if notability is established for a character later on.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm not seeing how a character list is an impermissible WP:CFORK. It's neither redundant nor a POV fork. Jclemens ( talk) 00:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    It's currently an unnecessary fork, and an argument can be further made that it strengthens the body of the series article as a result versus separate from it, and again the dev and reception info would be echoed between the series article and list. It's not a Street Fighter or Guilty Gear situation where we have entry upon entry for many of the characters: Darkstalkers at its core only has two truly "full" games between Darkstalkers/Night Warriors and the many iterations of Vampire Savior.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 01:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    If all you want is to merge the articles, why is this a nomination for deletion instead of just a merge request? It seems like doing this at AfD just makes the discussion more stressful. Toughpigs ( talk) 02:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Information from the article is still in the series article currently, so "Redirect" is a valid option here. But more importantly is that it was quickly obvious this was going to be a contentious subject. AfD is viable for this sort of discussion, especially compared to how much of a mess merge discussions have become where they stretch months on end before requesting a closer, at least as far as VG project articles go.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 02:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    So you've just admitted that there is no reason this content is impermissible: No WP:CFORK violation exists, no other WP:DEL#REASON applies. Am I wrong? If so, please point me out the policy-based rationale for starting this deletion discussion. I'm just not seeing it. Jclemens ( talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Again, the content on the list can fit into the main series article just fine without a loss of information; the current series article demonstrates that. Can we not engage in wikilawyering?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 05:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Wikilawyering is defined as "Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities". Asking for a basic policy reason when you gave none (besides "it's not necessary", more of a WP:USELESS argument) is not a technicality. There's something wrong if you think that anyone who dares argue a different opinion is being a Wikilawyer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Upgrading my keep to speedy keep per #3: no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Look, I'm fine with using AfD as articles for discussion--I quite favor it, in fact--but the price of entry is that you have to provide at least one rationale by which the target article could be deleted. I've asked. You haven't. So you can take this to a talk page discussion, but AfD should not be asked to compel a merge outcome when there is no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Jclemens ( talk) 06:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Can someone point me in the right direction of the policy towards where a list merits an article? Or...is there any policy on lists? Putting aside the threshold notability of the parent subject matter and the items that sit under it, am I correct that it's then just a pragmatic debate about whether the list is sufficiently long, detailed or complex to justify separation from the article about the subject matter? That stands to reason to me. If so, I imagine the issue is then just a disagreement over whether listifying things is preferred in any particular case; whilst I don't really like lists with few sources at all, that doesn't mean it attracts deletion policy unless it is short, lacks depth, and/or could easily sit within the parent article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Vrxces See WP:NLIST/ WP:LISTN. And no, it's not precise. Maybe we need to have an RfC on estabilishing criteria for lists of characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Agree, there is an enduring issue with notability for articles and lists relating to fictional characters and more guidance is needed. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 02:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The closest thing we have is WP:NLIST which is as vague to when lists can be made into articles. However, I know that fictional character lists without a significant amount of secondary sources on development and reception of the characters, and excessive primary details, are only grudgingly accepted across WP. Masem ( t) 02:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per my comment in last AfD which was just a month ago. I am also not impressed by the stealthy attempt to delete by redirecting that took place at Felicia (Darkstalkers), which I now restored. That article deserves a proper AfD. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    PS. I've added something discusing the cast as a group to the reception section, which, well, did not exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • BLAR-ing is supposed to be a viable alternative to AfD if we feel it's reasonable. That's not a "stealthy attempt to delete", that's the results of a very length WP:BEFORE and examination of the sources, it wasn't done in bad faith.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 02:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Then use AfD. That was not a good topic to BLAR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    BLAR is specifically for uncontroversial topics, not just ones you think are reasonable. As WP:BLAR says, ""Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial [...] cases of blanking and redirecting." The majority of video game characters should be considered controversial to merge unless the page is WP:ALLPLOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom. It's not about whether the list meets LISTN or not, it's about whether there needs to be a split in the first place. KFM has proven that this list reasonably fits within the Darkstalkers article without disrupting it, so I don't see a need for an unnecessary content fork here. Arguments above have been ignoring the core argument of this AfD, which is about whether or not this split is necessary. NLIST isn't being argued here, that can be established, it's whether or not we really need this article to be separated. Based off what I'm seeing, I don't think a split is necessary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 03:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Pokelego999: I am unsure if you are aware, but the article was pared down to a tiny fraction of its former size prior to being "merged", including removal of numerous WP:RS. It fits in its current, barely-there state, but not in its previous fleshed-out one. I don't think much has been "proven" here at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't see any cut characters. The only issue I see is that RS were removed, and if that is the case, simply add them back to the article. One or two articles per character (Which seems pretty unlikely) should not bloat the article to a significant extent. This seems like a matter that can be resolved by simple editing, and if the article does in fact achieve significant bloat by adding the sources to its current state, then that can be a separate split discussion. The size is manageable, and further discussion should have been done before a BLAR revert. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 16:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Zxcvbnm: This is what you really want to defend as "fleshed out"? Really? The one with Eventhubs, "FlyingOmelete", and leftover gameguide commentary from past merges?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Some sources really were unreliable, yes - there were a number of blatant blogs that failed WP:USERG outright. But you are cherry-picking the absolute worst sources that for sure should have been removed. You also deleted many usable sources, so it was, in the most charitable interpretation, a rushed, "baby out with the bathwater" situation. Why was a full article on Anakaris from VentureBeat written by a WIRED journalist deleted despite being SIGCOV? Such things completely torpedo your argument that all the cleanup you did was of poor sources, and that the characters cannot be expanded within the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You did jump in on this during an ongoing effort to clean it up and rework the series article as a whole, a long term effort not unlike those you do. The list was merged less than a weak ago, and had an AfD disrupt things to boot. Stuff like VentureBeat wasn't worked back in *yet*, but it also doesn't say a lot and can be taken down to a sentence. For comparison, the List of generation I Pokémon is being worked on by cogsan, and many of those Pokemon undoubtedly have at least one SIGCOV article somewhere, but one also has to consider the list as a whole. That said it feels like some of this could be ironed out on my talk page instead of muddying this discussion further.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 14:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If it was a longterm effort at cleanup, gutting and/or blanking this article is the very wrong way to go about it. It should remain untouched, and a new draft created elsewhere until it is ready to replace the existing content. At that point you can start a merge discussion using the draft as evidence. It still doesn't mean deleting this article wholesale is merited at all regardless of how poor quality you think it is right now. Currently there is no replacement for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 16:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep On one hand, I strongly agree with the nominator that the listification approach can be redundant and often produces poor-quality articles where the subject matter is better canvassed within the primary article. But in the context of this article, editors worked to improve the quality and merge non-notable characters to it, stripping the pretty wide (if highly flawed) sourcing in the purpose. Fighting games also strike me as having appropriate separated character articles because the characters tend to have significant attention as the narrative and gameplay anchor for the games. Although noting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there is a commonplace practice of having character lists accompany the article: such as for Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, King of Fighters, which originally didn't look too dissimilar to how this used to be honestly. It feels like there's not a settled approach to the future of this that has been exposed by the deletion nomination, and because there is not a self-evident notability issue the direction should be to err on the side of caution. No expert on this stuff though - as stated above there's not a lot of guidance on where the best approach lies for character articles and fictional lists. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ ＶＲＸＣＥＳ Offering some food for thought, but I feel a big thing to consider with that comparison is that MK, Street Fighter and KoF also have had 10+ games each to build canon from for their characters. Darkstalkers, as a series has only had two: Night Warriors is a re-release of Darkstalkers with two characters and the bosses playable, while every game after is just a modified version of Vampire Savior, story and all. When distilled there really isn't much story per character, or traits.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 23:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • As someone who has done searches for Darkstalkers characters, there's very little sigcov on the cast. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 02:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFD2.0, we were just debating this article a month ago. I'm relisting the discussion as opinion is split between those editors advocating Keeping the article and those supporting a Merge. One editor states that the nominator is arguing for a Merge, is that accurate? No one is supporting an outright deletion, right?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Liz: The nominator is very clearly arguing for a merge, as they stated "does not need to be a separate entity. As you can see from the link above, it fits perfectly inside the series article", which is a merge rather than deletion argument. They acknowledge the notability of the cast but nevertheless believe it should be merged as after they cleaned up what they believed to be poor sources, the article became a hollow shell. In its current state, the article could be merged with nothing lost, however, many of the sources they removed are perfectly good, viable SIGCOV and their deletions resulted in a net loss of information. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

What sigcov was removed? - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 00:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Zx I'm just going to be blunt, that's hogwash. The issue is WP:NOPAGE: the information in this article can fit neatly inside Darkstalkers#Plot (as it currently does), and the development and reception info is going to be the same for the series as for the list. There's no need for a separate list.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 00:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Fine then, I know claims don't mean much without evidence, so here's proof of the significant sources that are not in this version. As mentioned above, an article on Anakaris was removed, and the significant coverage from Den of Geek is still AWOL for no apparent reason, despite also having a full character list of the original roster and a bit of analysis. The character list from Hardcore Gaming 101 was purged to the aether until I added it back myself. At the time of the AfD the character roster from GamesRadar+ wasn't there either. Some of the articles were truly trivial/unreliable coverage, but yeah - baby with the bathwater. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 10:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Not to ask a dumb question, but wouldn't Den of Geek's article make more sense in the series article given it's reception on, well, the series? As for Anakaris' it is it's entirely about the character's gameplay which would be hard to work in; I mean many characters on List of generation I Pokémon have similar articles, would you argue those should be worked into there as well?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 12:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I think it could be used for both articles, certainly. I am unsure why it would be disqualified from use in a character list however, as significant coverage is not required to be the focus of the source material. And "entirely about the character's gameplay"... it's perfectly reasonable to use an article about the gameplay as a source. I don't see anywhere in policy that bans such a thing, frankly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. while gameplay coverage from secondary sources should be incorporated into our video game coverage, we don't want to pull gameplay from primary sources like gameplay guides. —  Masem ( t) 19:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There's clearly some confusion here about what WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE actually means. It states that writers should "Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context". It's not a blanket prohibition of anything talking about gameplay, only specifies that guides should not pop up apropos of nothing, like just wanting to write a FAQ for the cool new game that just released. None of the sources I gave are primary; all are secondary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - So, it seems the main argument here is that the article isn't "needed." But on the other hand, I don't see any convincing reasons on why the article shouldn't exist either. In its current state, you can argue that it fits fine in the series article, but I also see WP:POTENTIAL for some expansion. There are some articles discussing some of its characters, such as from Game Rant, The Gamer and GamesRadar. MoonJet ( talk) 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Most of these sources give at most a sentence of commentary on the characters as a collective, focusing more on giving short snippets towards the individual members. There's not enough in any of these articles to really buff up this one substantially, and I'd argue that your argument as a whole falls under WP: NOPAGE. If it doesn't need to exist and can be better covered at another article, than it should be. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 23:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Well, seeing as Felicia will soon almost surely be merged per AFD result, that will leave Morrigan as the only Darkstalkers character with their own article. Surely there could some discussion on some of the characters merged in there, even though it proved to be not quite enough for their article? Demitri also had has own article, until fairly recently, for example. Keep in mind that WP:LISTN notes that one way to establish notability for lists is to have sources that discuss the set as a group, not the only way. In any case, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I see a valid split here. You don't. MoonJet ( talk) 00:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    If there's enough for a split, maybe, but most of the commentary is very fleeting for the bulk of the characters. There's probably a good chunk for recently merged characters like Felicia and Demitri, but most won't have that, and those chunks can likely be covered in the main Darkstalkers article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 03:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep [44] [45] [46] [47] Rjjiii ( talk) 21:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Two articles have already been cited by Moonjet above and the other two suffer from similar reasons as above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 03:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Kevin Foxx

Kevin Foxx (  | talk | history | 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 could not find any additional sources which shows he passes WP:GNG in a WP:BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T· C 21:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

IceChat

IceChat (  | talk | history | 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:NSOFT Mfixerer ( talk) 09:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Posted to the wrong daily log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider this a First Relist as the previous one was just to move the discussion to the correct daily log page. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. The sources proposed by Jonie148 have not been questioned by others. Sandstein 08:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Under the Radar Volume 2

Under the Radar Volume 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same as WP:Articles for deletion/Under the Radar Volume 3 - No evidence of notability, Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG – Davey2010 Talk 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pinging me. I don't have a huge amount of emotional investment or interest here (I was more interested in the topic five-ten years ago, when I worked on these pages), but I think there are a range of sources which can help establish notability. These look useful, for instance:

-- Jonie148 ( talk) 08:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Voting keep per Jonie148. I think there's enough coverage for a short but helpful album entry here. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 04:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Under the Radar Volume 1

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

Same as WP:Articles for deletion/Under the Radar Volume 3 - No evidence of notability, Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG – Davey2010 Talk 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pinging me. I don't have a huge amount of emotional investment or interest here (I was more interested in the topic five-ten years ago, when I worked on these pages), but I think there are a range of sources which can help establish notability. These look useful, for instance:

-- Jonie148 ( talk) 08:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Many thanks for finding these - I did like with any article do a WP:BEFORE search and only found the NME source so many thanks for finding these, I'll add them to the article, Thanks, Warm Regards, – Davey2010 Talk 00:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Voting keep per Jonie148. I think there are enough sources for a short but helpful album entry here. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Editors wanting to pursue a Redirect/Merge option can open a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Sestre (drag act)

Sestre (drag act) (  | talk | history | 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. Only notable for one event, their Eurovision participation. 92.249.247.173 ( talk) 18:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)}} reply

  • Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator--above text is copied from the IP's user talk page. As for my own view, one would think that participation in Eurovision would render an act inherently notable, but at the very least the sourcing could use improvement. -- Finngall talk 20:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sexuality and gender, and Slovenia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per criteria 10 and 12 of WP:MN. BabbaQ ( talk) 07:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • WP:ONEEVENT is a valid rationale. I suggest a redirect to the Slovenia in ESC 2002 page. - 92.249.247.156 ( talk) 07:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Just a suggestion, create a user account. As your IP adress is obviously changing. Anyways, - per criteria 10 and 12 of WP:MN applies here and is pointing to notability. BabbaQ ( talk) 08:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the amount of coverage they received back then clearly establishes notability. Adding criteria 11 from MN, their main song still appears on radio and TV shows sometimes. -- Tone 10:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Slovenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2002; the article is largely unsourced, therefore is already falling down on WP:BLP, and given WP:1E their only notable achievement being representing Slovenia at Eurovision I believe a redirect to another article where their appearance within this one event is discussed in greater detail is more appropriate. Sims2aholic8 ( talk) 13:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or selectively merge as suggested. A redirect without keeping some of the information would be in error. Bearian ( talk) 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: - the criterias 10 and 12 of WP:MN still applies for notability. So staying behind my Keep rationale. Also criteria 11 seem to apply indeed as pointed out by user Tone above. BabbaQ ( talk) 15:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The sourcing as it stands should ideally be improved but I agree with the rationale above that points 10-12 from WP:MN apply. Editing84 ( talk) 16:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Rita Puspa Zakaria

AfDs for this article:
Rita Puspa Zakaria (  | talk | history | 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 individual in question serves as a government official in a third-level subdivision of Indonesia. The majority of references in her article pertain to her work within her region, lacking significant national coverage as required by WP:BASIC. Additionally, her designation as a lecturer potentially qualifies her as an academic, yet fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NACADEMIC. Ckfasdf ( talk) 20:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already part of a bundled nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariah binti Ahmad so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: This reads as an extended family biography, I don't see notability with the sources presented. I can't find any in Gsearch, but there might be more in the native language. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 22:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ebirah

Ebirah (  | talk | history | 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 minor Kaiju from Godzilla. I can't seem to find much on it, barring two book sources I stumbled on (One of which is already cited in the article.) While these are solid, there just isn't much more than that, and thus I don't see enough justifying a split here. I'd personally recommend a redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep, its debut film, given that seems to be its biggest role. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Japan. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - Several other languages have a separate page for Ebirah, most notably Japaneses, which has a lengthy page with numerous citations. Moreover, a Google book search turns up numerous references to Eibrah in credible sources, including additional information that is not currently found in our article. Ebirah has also appeared in other comic books and media beyond what is listed in our article. Eibrah is having a bit of a moment of late, and if anything is only going to appear even more often going forward. I think rather than deleting this article should actually be updated and expanded -- Ash-Gaar ( talk) 22:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Just because an article has versions in alternate languages does not mean that it is inherently notable. A recent merge, Charmander, was in more than thirty languages and yet had a unanimous merge consensus. All bar the Japanese article as well are in similar if not worse states than ours. It has some decent dev info in the Japanese article that is certainly better than ours, but I don't think it's enough to justify the article either way given both a complete lack of Reception and the fact the development was not so incredibly well documented that it justifies a separate article on its own, though I am willing to debate that point. In any case, numerous appearances and numerous hits do not contribute to notability either. Most of the book hits I saw were just mentions of the Ebirah movie and associated plot recaps. There's very little in the way of actual commentary on Ebirah in most of those sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 03:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Re-direct to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep. As the article stands, its strictly in-universe content with no real world reference. It can show up a billion times on several google hits mean nothing as the character needs real world relevance outside of the Godzilla series. The characters appearance outside of the film seems to be limited to just showing up in video games, other films, comics etc. Without context, all this can be covered in a paragraph within the film article in a Legacy or influence section after. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep, the first film the kaiju appeared in, and the only one in which it had a significant role. Much like in the similar AFD for Manda, simply citing the number of references in the Japanese article is not sufficient when actually looking in-depth at those sources show them to be comprised of a number of official Toho publications, the same book being cited as different sources multiple times, and even a piece or two of fiction. Additionally, the sources are not really being used to support any claim of notability for the creature, but simply providing verification for the plot and production details for the movies that it appeared in. Searching for English sources turns up much of the same kind of sources - reviews, plot summaries, and production details for the films, but nothing showing that Ebirah could be considered notable on its own merits, and not simply covered as part of the articles for the handful of films it appeared in. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep, largely unsourced original research page. Even if it is notable, it would require a full rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep per above. There are no in-depth coverage except usual reviews and plot summary listings. Bhivuti45 ( talk) 11:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 22:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The Movie Channel (British TV channel)

The Movie Channel (British TV channel) (  | talk | history | 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. I googled it, and found no reliable sources. Avishai11 ( talk) 20:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep Please read WP:BEFORE comprehensively before attempting another nomination; 'it's not on Google' is by far not a proper rationale for deletion, especially for a network that predated that website. It also has a plausible redirect target so this isn't getting deleted. Nate • ( chatter) 23:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This was originally a separate channel from Sky Movies/Sky Cinema so it needs to have its own article, separate from Sky Cinema. Also, a redirect is effectively a delete. And to remove any doubt about its notability on the grounds of not finding anything via Googling it, I have added a number of references to the article. Rillington ( talk) 06:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thank you, I definitely had a feeling sources were out there, and the 'redirection=deletion' line certainly fits; just letting the nom know that this isn't getting redlinked anytime soon. Nate • ( chatter) 12:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 22:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Richard Kell (footballer)

Richard Kell (footballer) (  | talk | history | 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:NSPORT. Geoff | Who, me? 20:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment To make this nom perfectly clear, I am conveying a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I apologize for not making that clearer when I initiated the discussion. Geoff | Who, me? 04:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Completely disagree with your assessment, did you bother doing a WP:BEFORE? First result, he became a pilot. [51], Shocking nomination, there are a number of those on a google search which easily passes WP:GNG, with some interviews. There are more sources for his footballing career. Govvy ( talk) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - judging by the PROD comment, this should be seen as a potential WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as Richard Kell himself has requested deletion. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Govvy; over 100 professional appearances with coverage out there, clearly notable. Giant Snowman 19:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Govvy, WP:BEFORE not thoroughly completed. Notable footballer. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 23:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The request for removing this BLP came from an IP and it hasn't been verified. Also the IP showed irregular editing closer to vandalism, removing some cites that could be restored etc. So can it be even trusted? So the nominator requesting a change of nomination? Have you even been in contact with Richard Kell? I don't see any evidence of that. Govvy ( talk) 08:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    See VRTS ticket #  2024032510011024. You can ask a VRTS member for confirmation at the VRT noticeboard. Geoff | Who, me? 12:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Per above. Svartner ( talk) 11:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clearly has a career worthy of notability. I agree with Govvy in full. This is very obvious. Anwegmann ( talk) 16:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - obviously will be kept, with 100+ Football League appearances, but with the BLPREQUESTDELETE, I've deleted the birthdate - which doesn't seem necessary to me. Nfitz ( talk) 19:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per WP:ATHLETE. Bhivuti45 ( talk) 11:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 22:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Héctor Larrea

Héctor Larrea (  | talk | history | 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. Avishai11 ( talk) 20:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Rhonard García

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

The subject made a single appearance for the Dominican Republic national football team a decade ago. I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG; all I found were passing mentions in both English- and Spanish-language media. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Derick Sequeira

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

The subject made a single appearance for the Nicaragua national football team a decade ago. I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG; all I found were passing mentions in both English- and Spanish-language media. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Canada, and Nicaragua. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 23:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete played only for semi-pro and/or amateur/academy teams. One international appearances doesn't supersede WP:SPORTBASIC. Anwegmann ( talk) 16:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Question to Anwegmann. Are thee appearances sufficient? I'm not an expert, but playing one game (with no goals) is not sufficient to pass WP:FOOTY (see De minimis non curat lex), but three might be. Bearian ( talk) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Hey Bearian. There is some precedent here (and further discussed here) pointing to 20 international appearances as enough to supersede a lack of WP:SIGCOV and/or WP:SPORTBASIC. I'm all for using international appearances as a measure of notability, as I feel as though football articles suffer terribly from WP:BIAS. I've made that point clear several times, but Sequeira doesn't really reach any of thresholds I'm aware of, unfortunately. Anwegmann ( talk) 19:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Three - probably not. But three appearances at the U-17 world cup, winning a bronze medal, with some media coverage is another question. Nfitz ( talk) 19:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's a good point. Which is to say that I am more than happy to change my vote if we can arrive at some kind of consensus on this. Anwegmann ( talk) 19:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails SPORTBASIC. Bhivuti45 ( talk) 11:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above discussion. Thank you for answering my questions. Bearian ( talk) 15:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I note that merely assuming that offline sources exist is not enough; to make a topic verifiable they must be cited ( WP:V). A renomination is therefore possible. Sandstein 08:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Workers Party of Barbados

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

Party contested one election and received 40 (!) votes, or 0.03%. Needless to say, it does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Barbados. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A random dude, obviously not a notable party. Reywas92 Talk 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Non-notable. Shadow311 ( talk) 15:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - article expanded now. Going through what is available online, we can deduce that there was plenty of coverage of the party as of the mid-1980s, and that the fore-runner of WPB (MONALI), which from my reading could be considered one and the same organization, had gained national notoriety during the protests of 1983 Grenada invasion. We can also surely assumed that there would be coverage in Cuban, Soviet, Korean and Nicaraguan news outlets, not available online. -- Soman ( talk) 20:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • How would North Korean media be WP:RS during an active conflict situation? Geschichte ( talk) 09:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - concur with Soman; the forerunner is referenced in the CIA's 1983 World Fact Book (p.17) more than reasonable to assume furhter offline sourcing available. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    A "mention" is not significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder ( talk) 11:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Shouldn't the article be about MONALI, then, with an appendix in that article about the WPB? Geschichte ( talk) 09:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I'm seeing lots of mentions of the party in a range of different publications, from regional reports to a mention about the boycott of the games, in spite of the low turnout on election day. Think the sourcing is there to keep this one even though they didn't make much of an impact, though reasonable arguments for merging somewhere else might exist. SportingFlyer T· C 23:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Belle Rock Entertainment

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

Kept at previous AfD based in part due to conduct of nom, this company does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Zero secondary sources. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

DELETE - Article has no proper references. Google yielded no additional news. Z3r0h3r000 ( talk) 07:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominated previously at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 14:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The "delete" opinions are both more numerous and more convincing. The "keep" opinions make the point that the topic is interesting, but that is not a criterium für inclusion in Wikipedia. Rather, we care about notability, as reflected in substantial coverage (more than passing mentions) in reliable sources, and the "keep" side fails to cite such coverage. Sandstein 08:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The Pizza Meter

The Pizza Meter (  | talk | history | 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 attempts to show that this is a real, coherent concept, when in fact it's just a single Domino's pizza store owner's post hoc observations synthesized into something supposedly substantial. Citation 2 (available here from 1991) is his very brief (unverified) claim of delivering more pizzas to the White House, CIA, and Pentagon, including ahead of the invasion. Then at cite 1 ( here from 1991) the same Domino's owner briefly makes the same claim that late-night deliveries to government offices increased. That's it! Cite 3 is from the unreliable "rec.humor.funny" about the same claim from the same year, cite 4 very briefly mentions the same 1991 reports, and cite 5 is a brief, unreliable anecdote from someone who heard the same factoid on the radio. This is one person's anecdata that got some very brief attention, not a verified or meaningful phenomenon as the article puffs it up to be, and not something notable deserving of a standalone article. People order delivery when they work late, so what? Reywas92 Talk 19:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Military, Politics, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Might have been a wikipedia article in the 1990s... I don't see coverage of this since that time frame. I'd expect it to continue into the multiple invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: If this might've been a Wikipedia article in the 1990s, it should be a Wikipedia article now. Information doesn't have an expiry date. This cultural phenomenon, though fairly minor and short-lived, is still worth documenting. The Slate article from 2016 linked below and the YouTube video that brought me to this article show that the topic is of some contemporary interest too. — turdas talk - contribs 13:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      The Slate article is just a single paragraph that again only references the one-off 1991 comment as "online anecdotes". None of the rest of the article is about this. Reywas92 Talk 13:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per OP. Seems to be one (non-notable) claim by the local Dominos which just got repeated by a few outlets. — Czello ( music) 21:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Does it really need to stand up to robust analysis in order to be notable enough for an article? e.g. Waffle House Index, Big Mac Index, etc. Whether a concept is epistemologically sound is not related to its notability. Or, put another way, we have articles for things like Divination and Fortune Telling. We don't delete them just because those things have no supporting evidence for their efficacy. Fredo699 ( talk) 22:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Notability and verifiability are separate criteria. The nominator isn't basing their deletion rationale on the lack of robust evidence but rather the fact that it's an insignificant "concept" based solely on unverified observations from a single Domino's pizza store owner. Mooonswimmer 00:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Apparently there was a short-lived annual report put out by Dominos in the mid-90s called the "Pizza Meter," based on interviews of 500 deliverers and store managers nationwide (see here, here). Potential redirect to Domino's Pizza? Mooonswimmer 00:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: I actually saw a video on youtube that referenced the 'pizza index' and came here to get more information. Seems like the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide that exact service. Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRohz9VO1YY Tkircher ( talk) 22:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It's stupid, incorrect videos like this why the article should deleted. It's insane that people are making shit up like "It turns out there's a method to find out [the exact date of an operation]...discovered by Frank Meeks. He knows that Operation Desert Storm is going to commence tomorrow on January 17 due to the spike in late night pizza orders from government offices." Except that's total bullshit, Meeks didn't know anything, he claimed this connection to ordering his pizza retroactively. The original 1991 quote in the Tribune observed there was an increase in deliveries "since the war broke out", not that he predicted it beforehand! Then this amateur youtuber says "This correlation was coined 'The Pizza Index' which also successfully predicted military action ahead of time in many other cases." Wrong! There were no predictions (how could you predict anything beyond a vague 'they must be busy with something'), Meeks only made these claims about the Gulf War after the fact! I am very disappointed how the article presents this as an actual predictive phenomenon rather than a single company owner's anecdotal cherry-picked data and even more disappointed that Depths of Wikipedia posted it, resulting in other people like this running with it as more legitimate than it actually is. Unfortunately it doesn't really work to have an article just to debunk or clarify an urban legend; I'm surprised how poor the article Operations security is, but this deserves no more than a single sentence like "In 1991, an owner of pizza franchises observed that pizza delivery orders to the Pentagon and White House increased at night during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; such relationships can be used in traffic analysis", cited to [52]. Reywas92 Talk 15:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Isn't dismissing "stupid, incorrect" claims like this part of the reason Wikipedia exists? Rewrite the article to tell the true story of how this was mostly a singular event or an urban legend of sorts in the 90s. It's relevant enough to have been covered in the Washington Post too (I found this article with a total of 15 seconds of googling), so I don't think the /relevancy/ of this is in question. The article's presentation of it could be misleading, but clearly this was an actual "thing" in the 90s. — turdas talk - contribs 15:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I'd rather not have a stand-alone article on something that has little substance or sourcing beyond a few sentences at a time. With the WaPo article, are you suggesting expanding it into something saying that even government staffers get delivery when they have to work late? Why would that be an encyclopedia article? That has just a brief mention of Domino's having a Pentagon delivery record set during the Gulf War, nothing predictive, nothing substantive – we don't need an article to say a couple hundred people (1-2% of the Pentagon's workforce) had pizza delivered and someone realized later why they were working late. Maybe there should be a bullet in List_of_common_misconceptions#United_States! Reywas92 Talk 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Saying that it's just about government staffers getting delivery when working late is a reductivist argument. If it really was as uninteresting and mundane of a fact as you claim, then it would never have made news in the first place. Also, this wasn't just a retrospective, it actually was predictive in at least one instance: this Chicago Tribune is dated January 16 1991 and mentions the Dominos guy's prediction from "Tuesday" (January 15, presumably), and the Gulf War's main air campaign began on January 17. — turdas talk - contribs 16:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Something being interesting enough for a newspaper article does not mean it needs a stand-alone article. They're decent fun facts as a sort of Human-interest story but not everything above the mundane is to be included here this way. But seriously, was this pizza index predictive, or did everyone know military action was imminent? January 15 was the UN-imposed deadline for Iraq to withdraw before force was authorized. Just a couple days earlier Congress passed a resolution approving use of force! Troops knew we were on the verge of war! The Pentagon was working late every night that week, but maybe the night before they had ordered from Pizza Hut instead of from the guy who was happy to talk to the media! I admit my comment above was incorrectly dismissive of the timeline, but just because you can draw a connection between things doesn't mean it has encyclopedic significance or should have its own article. Reywas92 Talk 18:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete When you have to link to a comments section as one of your limited number of references, I think you can pretty safely say WP:GNG isn't met. SportingFlyer T· C 11:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ethernet Exchange

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

Outdated, was future-looking when initially written, into a market that failed to materialize. Not a thing in 2024. No inline references, general references are decade+ old marketing materials. WP:PROD nomination of article was contested by Kvng on the basis of WP:NOTTEMPORARY, but the article was never notable to begin with (fails WP:SIGCOV, "press releases [...] are not considered independent", WP:SPIP "press releases [...] are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article", WP:SBST "routine news coverage such as press releases [...] is not significant coverage", WP:PRSOURCE "A press release is clearly not an independent source"), so bringing it here for a full AfD. DefaultFree ( talk) 18:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ryan Warren

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Articls is just basic resume information.

Of the 4 sources: Two just list him as one of hundreds nominated or finalists for two awards. The third ref does not even mention him. The fourth was two short paragraphs as recipient of the Clinton Grybas Emerging Talent Award. North8000 ( talk) 18:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Montana#District 2. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 22:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Steve Held

Steve Held (  | talk | history | 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 congressional candidate. Of the 4 sources cited on the page, 1 is Ballotpedia, 1 is IMDb, 1 is a NYT article about his daughter that doesn't even mention him, and the other is a press release he sent out. Doesn't seem to have gotten significant news coverage and I don't see any reason to think he's notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 17:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As this person is a current congressional candidate, this page is all the more important as a source of public information. Lnbknrd1 ( talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" -- WP:NPOL. Wikipedia is not a search engine, it's an encyclopedia of articles about notable people, events, and concepts. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 17:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
For the record, I would also support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Montana#District 2. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 01:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure SAG board membership confers notability. Looking at the current national board, there are plenty of members who have Wikipedia pages, but there are also plenty who don't, including Samantha MacIvor, Eric Wydra, Avis Boone, Diana Boylston, Rik Deskin, Shaan Sharma, and Ilyssa Fradin. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 17:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
He also only had some minor roles, and this article was clearly created in support of his candidacy. If there are sources demonstrating he's a notable actor, I'm willing to review them on those grounds, but I'm not optimistic. SportingFlyer T· C 21:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Are there independent third party mentions about their membership? Cannot find one so why should it matter. But agree with possible recreation after election. Killarnee ( talk) 21:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

List of unusual injuries or survived experiences

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

Subjective list with unclear and potentially indiscriminate inclusion criteria.
Firstly, it's not clearly defined what constitutes "unusual" in this context. For example, there's an entry here for a person who survived a leopard attack by fighting off the leopard, which falls rather short of being unique or unprecedented — and while the person in question does have a Wikipedia article, "survived a leopard attack" isn't the reason why he has a Wikipedia article: he has a Wikipedia article because of his work as a biologist and conservationist and taxidermist, while surviving a leopard attack is just one sentence of trivia within it rather than his core notability claim, and is not important enough in the context of his overall biography to warrant being immortalized in a list of "unusual" incidents.
There are also many people listed here who don't have Wikipedia articles at all, many of whom would never get a Wikipedia article on the basis of what's described here in and of itself, as well as several people who are included without any description whatsoever of what even happened, and many who are listed without sourcing.
And without a clear and objective definition of what constitutes "unusual", this could potentially attract an infinite number of unencylopedic entries for anybody who ever gets a hit or two of human-interest coverage in the context of surviving almost any potentially dangerous incident whatsoever — for example, bridges don't collapse every day, so technically the two survivors of the Baltimore bridge collapse just the other day survived an experience "unusual" enough to merit listing here too — which just renders it effectively open-ended and unmaintainable.
This just isn't the kind of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia. Bearcat ( talk) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - indiscriminate information with ideosyncratic inclusion criteria. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt ( talk) 18:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with regret as I love this sort of random trivia but we’re building an encyclopedia not recreating Ripley’s Believe It Or Not! Mccapra ( talk) 21:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This list could become a category at most. What bothers me most is that many of the people listed don't have their own article or are in the list because of another reason, which makes it a nice to read list with unlimited and undefined scope. Killarnee ( talk) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TNT. I'm going to go along, but for a novel reason: it's a huge mess. I'm not against such a list with proper reasons and rubrics for inclusion, but the entries (other than the first, Phineas Gage), appear to be quite random. The notes are extraordinarily long. Beyond ordinary amounts of editing would have to take place to fix the many problems in this article. Sorry. Bearian ( talk) 17:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Would make a great listicle somewhere in the web though. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ Allan Nonymous ( talk) 04:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Godtube

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

Has been six years since WP:GNG was raised. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 16:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Allan Nonymous what was the result of your WP:BEFORE searches? If they weren't done, I invite you to withdraw the nomination. Oblivy ( talk) 04:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus after a month of discussions and relistings. Merges, if required, can be discussed in the talk page, outside AfD. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 22:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

TruckersFM

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

Insufficient notability, perhaps merge into a Truck Simulator community section? Apart from unreliable Metro, sources appear to be about a community around the game as a whole. IgelRM ( talk) 12:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Video games. IgelRM ( talk) 12:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Got SIGCOV from 2 sources, here and here. While Metro is considered a tabloid newspaper, there's nothing to suggest the article from them is factually skewed or influenced by bias. This seems like an edge case where Metro would still make sense as proof of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I see the argument that Metro ( WP:METRO) is in this case not much worse than the other sources. But it feels off that we write about this and not say, the TruckersMP modification. Could the modification pass notability, maybe that could be a merge target then? IgelRM ( talk) 10:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    With regards to TruckersMP, it does not seem to have gotten any coverage in RS whatsoever, while this did. So, it's simple why this should have an article while the mod should not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 10:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The modification probably got more coverage, see PCGamer, GameStar, Shacknews. IgelRM ( talk) 02:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not really. All 3 of those seem like basic announcements rather than SIGCOV like the radio station got. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Fair enough, but I would not count those Truck Simulator feature articles as SIGCOV for the radio station alone. Found more from Eurogamer, PCGamer and note that multiplayer is now an official feature. IgelRM ( talk) 10:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Those are definitely more substantial. Still, that seems to be the sole SIGCOV that exists on the Internet. It falls just short of passing GNG. If you can find something else, it would probably merit an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 19:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the series article Truck Simulator. Zx's Eurogamer and PCN sources are good enough to write a small subsection, but not really enough to support a full article. I think it's best covered as part of this parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 15:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus after a month of discussions and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 22:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Shock (troupe)

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP who made a request at WT:AFD which says: This article needs to be nominated for deletion. It cites no sources (despite being tagged for a decade now), and the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Shock were a short-lived British dance troupe from the early 80s, but were never famous in their own right. They were known only by association. They released two singles, neither of which charted. Their former members are not prominent or widely known beyond this troupe. CycloneYoris talk! 08:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Music. CycloneYoris talk! 08:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Skynxnex ( talk) 15:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The basics of this can be summarized in a few sentences and sourced to The Guardian, "... the burlesque pop band Shock. They supported Gary Numan at Wembley, performed at the Hacienda and did an eight-night stint at the Ritz in New York, where Grace Jones, Shields and Yarnell and Billy Idol came to see them play." Several possible articles exist to merge the basics of this into, the best being probably founding member Tim Dry, but there are also related articles on members Barbie Wilde and Carole Caplin, along with Tik and Tok, a later project. Elspea756 ( talk) 20:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: And redirect to Tik and Tok, their later project, which already has the basics of this, and some additional references about their later career. Elspea756 ( talk) 23:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 15:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was This is the only consensus I can discern from this discussion as few editors commented on the other articles. No penalty for future AFDs on this other articles.‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same issues below:

List of 2010 Commonwealth Games broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of EFL Cup broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Eredivisie broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of EuroLeague broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ligue 1 broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are announcments and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: There was no way in which this article was going to survive. I have copied and pasted its content into the main article which means there is now no need for this to be retained. I am only commenting on, and advocating for deletion of, the FIFA CWC broadcast list. Rillington ( talk) 20:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect only the Club World Cup broadcasting article to FIFA Club World Cup#List of current broadcasters per nom. Lacks standalone notability. Procedurally keep all others so they can be renominated separately if desired and their individual merits can be better examined. This list includes domestic football leagues, domestic and international football cups, and multiple non-football competitions which could have widely varying levels of notability. Frank Anchor 23:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Procedurally keep all others Agreed. Each of the others need to be separate AfD debates, should anyone propose their deletion from Wikipedia. Rillington ( talk) 05:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      I tried that before but then I had one user who suggested that they could be bundled together. I nominated them all as they had the same issues. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no need of an article for something which can be covered in just 1 paragraph. Azuredivay ( talk) 10:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters as per last AFD, and then procedural keep the rest due to inappropriate bundling. Giant Snowman 19:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep the other 5 articles and renominate separately. Some of these articles refer to leagues and others to a specific instance of a competition. One of these is about basketball. Each might have separate merits. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this article and then procedural keep the rest per GiantSnowman's suggestion. Anwegmann ( talk) 19:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters, procedural keep on rest as per others, the bundling of these together doesn't work well, since they're a range of different sports. List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters already has a clear mandate to be deleted, as it hasn't demonstrated any more notability than last time round. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect the FIFA one to each tournament, and keep the others, for the poor bundling. Nfitz ( talk) 18:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters, procedural keep on the rest. Per the last AfD, the FIFA article is a violation of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Let'srun ( talk) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and do not salt the FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters article only. No opinion on the others which can be renominated individually. Carson Wentz ( talk) 04:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per above. Also, many of these articles use an OR spatial division, where countries in Western Asia are a fake continent with Egypt or are part of Europe. gidonb ( talk) 23:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 11:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Brigitte García

Brigitte García (  | talk | history | 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:1E/ WP:NOTMEMORIAL, only known because of her murder. As such, this biographical article should not exist, because she wasn't notable enough as a mayor of a small town. Clear WP:GNG fail with attempt at claiming notability based on post-death sources that are all about her death rather than significant coverage about her as a whole. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I am against, I sure the youngest mayor in Ecuador is notable, though it would be difficult for me to go through spainish media to retrieve it. Here is at least one article before here death.
There are also articles about murder victims on Wikipedia, so not being super notable alive isn't necessarily a cause for deletion.
https://www.pressreader.com/ecuador/el-diario-ecuador/20230215/281801403134246 A reasonable voice ( talk) 16:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. To make my above opinion absolutely clear, I am against deleting the article not retaining the article. A reasonable voice ( talk) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Pretty sure those articles about murder victims dive into the murder itself, not the person.
Also, those articles are just notable because of the murder and/or a celebrity who got murdered or did the murder. This is neither of those things as the page only exists because she died. Also, the "youngest mayor in Ecuador" part is trivia, and not actually something that means much. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. The youngest mayor in Ecuador is notable. There is significant coverage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-68655323
The One Event rule is not applicable, because there are at least two notable events in in her life — election as mayor and death.
Notmemorial is for persons trying to write about their deceased relatives, not about people who are written about in BBC, Spiegel, Sky news, Reuters, Fox News.
We do not require sources to be published before death. BilboBeggins ( talk) 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If her election as mayor was notable, then provide some sources for it.
I think you'd have a hard time doing that as she was a mayor of a small town (her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is just trivia). 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep This is comparable to a Mayor being assassinated in America in a city of 200,000. This is part of a wider spread of assassinations that should be covered on Wikipedia.
The assassination wasn't even the most notable part about her. She was the youngest mayor in Ecuador, a country of 9,000,000 people. Lukt64 ( talk) 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
And?
So what if she was the youngest mayor in Ecuador? Are there any reliable sources of her before her death? Her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is just trivia. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
"This is comparable to a Mayor being assassinated in America in a city of 200,000." - No it's not. The significance and size of towns isn't measured proportional to the size of their parent country, or we'd report every time someone stubbed their toe in the Vatican. I'm definitely ready to be persuaded that Ms Garcia was notable, and I hope to see some sources for that. But the size of her town relative to the country is completely irrelevant. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 10:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Lukt64 and BilboBeggins youngest mayor of Ecuador is notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 19:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Crime. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Coverage (worldwide) with “reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention” like here and here. Note it’s not only coverage after her death but also from 2023. 82.174.61.58 ( talk) 19:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Not entirely sure what to do here. We've never held that someone is notable simply because they were a young mayor before - it's nowhere in NPOL and those arguments aren't valid in this discussion. For a small town mayor to be notable, they have to be notable above and beyond just being a mayor. WP:CRIME applies here instead, not WP:NPOL, which I don't usually apply at AfD - that reads The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. I don't think we're quite there yet, but the amount of coverage that was received here means we could get there if this continues to be well-documented. SportingFlyer T· C 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed. If she was so notable from that, then there should be good sourcing for that, but nobody voting keep here has actually provided any sources that are significant coverage from prior to her death about this aledged remarkable achievement. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - enough coverage to pass WP:GNG & WP:POLITICIAN. As multiple other !voters have commentated on, Garcia was well-known in Ecuador prior to her assassination due to her youth and political agenda. Inter&anthro ( talk) 02:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • If she was well known, could you provide significant coverage sources that demonstrate this? WP:NPOLITICIAN is only met if she holds Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage but I see no sources prior to her death to show that she was a notable politician as claimed. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The one article I've seen from when she was mayor outside of the WP:NOTNEWS cycle was a local paper's interview with her, which doesn't count. Is there more? SportingFlyer T· C 09:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom or move per @ LaborHorizontal. No one has yet provided significant coverage of García before her death. Her being the youngest mayor of Ecuador is still purely trivia and should not be treated as an actual encyclopedic fact. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment There's a 2023 Ecuavisa article about García. toweli ( talk) 13:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Ideally keep, otherwise move to something like "Assassination of Brigitte García". I understand concerns about most sources being about her assassination rather than other parts of her career. Two things about that: (1) That itself is notable in my opinion, and justifies at least an article about the assassination if not the person herself, and (2) the sources note that she was notable in being the youngest mayor in Ecuador and a leftist challenger. Additional articles about her prior to her assassination:
The Primicias article only has passing mentions of García. Same for the El Diario article (not from Pressreader). The Ecuavisa and El Diario (on Pressreader) articles base her notability solely on the fact that she's the youngest mayor in Ecuador. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Even if sources note that she was notable for being the youngest mayor in Ecuador, that is still trivia. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep quite clearly passes the WP:GNG threshold and sure could be majorly expanded. Abcmaxx ( talk) 21:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I disagree that Garcia is 1E because her age and assassination would seem to both be of some note, but the former is trivia (do we have an article for the youngest mayor in every country), and the latter could probably use some expansion. Either way, we really could use more information on her actual career. If we agree to keep but expansion does not occur, this article SHOULD be reverted to a draft. DarkSide830 ( talk) 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep, notable mayor. I don't see a reason to delete this article, considering that there's an ongoing political crisis. Microplastic Consumer ( talk) 03:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
What arguments do you have to show she is notable and that you "don't see a reason to delete this article"? 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep, It may not be notable for a mayor that no one knew besides the occupants of her city, but according to most sources linked here, she was notable for being a young 27 year old being a mayor in Ecuador where the politicians are usually born in the 1950's and 60's and in some cases 1940's, it isn't surprising that most news articles focus on her. But her murder definitely gave a lot of spotlight since some people may have liked her and was in shock to hear that she was killed likely to an organization or a lone wolf. 70.167.194.163 ( talk) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is purely trivia, not actually encyclopedic. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Move to "Murder of Brigitte García" I agree with others who have pointed out that she is mostly notable for the manner of her death (murdered mayor). She would never have otherwise had a wikipedia article solely for being the youngest mayor in Ecuador. However, the media coverage of the murder itself is clearly significant in the context of the country's political crisis - enough so to merit an article (for examples of other articles about a notable murder itself and not about the murder victim, see Murder of Travis Alexander or Murder of Anita Cobby). Because the murder is far more notable than the murder victim, the existing content should be moved to an article focused on the killing itself. Flip and Flopped ツ 01:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • If consensus is keep, then keep with this move is my strongly preferred option rather than keeping as a biography article. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The consensus is to keep without moving. BilboBeggins ( talk) 16:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I have no problem with this result. SportingFlyer T· C 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
That's definitely an option as well. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Can we close this? The overwhelming consensus is to keep the article, only 2 editors seem to oppose this move while another supports a move Microplastic Consumer ( talk) 14:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There isn't clear consensus and there's WP:NODEADLINE on Wikipedia, so no need to speedy close this. There's multiple options including moving to "Murder of Brigitte García" on the table, which need to be properly discussed. 3 more days of discussion to achieve a better consensus is sensible right now. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep the article! the suggestion to move to "Murder of Brigitte Garcia" is also reasonable. This impressive young woman should be remembered. 2A02:C7C:BDD7:5000:E046:37F:FE7E:DD66 ( talk) 19:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC) — 2A02:C7C:BDD7:5000:E046:37F:FE7E:DD66e has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
No. See @ Joseph2302's response. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There is an ITN nomination that has been closed because of this AfD and won't be re-opened until this AfD is closed. Abcmaxx ( talk) 09:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
So what? The nom is already gone. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Move, per LaborHorizontal and SportingFlyer. There is clearly significant coverage of her murder, while it's debatable whether she had any such coverage before her death. I see no reason for deletion, but the scope of the article should probably be changed towards covering her death, per other articles about similar killings. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 11:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    keep, a young female mayor, that's remarkable on its own. Bdschi ( talk) 13:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's purely trivia. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep any mayor killed during an internal conflict is notorious. If she had another nationality there would not be so many doubts...Passes WP:GNG. _-_Alsor ( talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Still WP:1E though. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - perhaps the worst nomination I've seen in a long time. Major in-depth international coverage. Can you please remove this User talk:Joseph2302. Nfitz ( talk) 18:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • A discussion is most certainly not needed. I'd be less surprised to see her nominated at WP:ITN/C than I would at AFD. It's quite clear that consensus exists here - it's no longer necessary to be campaigning. Also pointing out that a nomination is very poor, is by no definition a personal attack! It's clearly a poor nomination, given the very clear consensus, and high participation. Nfitz ( talk) 19:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Disagreeing is fine, calling this AFD the worst nomination I've seen in a long time is not civil, and overly aggressive towards me. Given multiple editors have not voted keep, this is not a ridiculous nomination like you claim. Moving to a "Murder of" article is more sensible than a biography article too, and that warrants discussion. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 22:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It's absolutely civil, and not personal - it's encouragement to withdraw the nomination. Moving the article - which isn't something I've suggested - would be at ATD, and then BEFORE comes into question; but is suggesting BEFORE personal - because surely if what I said is personal - so is that. Nfitz ( talk) 23:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Greatest reasoning to keep: "should not be deleted at all". 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Current Tally:
15 Keep
3 Delete
2 Move
I feel this is sufficient to keep the article, a wide majority of editors are in favor of keeping this article Microplastic Consumer ( talk) 20:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm pretty sure consensus doesn't just work by counting up the number of votes, but also by the quality of the arguments ( WP:DCON). A large number of Keep voters don't seem to have an actual argument (besides her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador, which is trivia) for keeping that challenges the nominator's concerns. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It isn't just counting the voters - but over 5:1 without some kind of off-wiki campaign or something, is hard to dispute. But hang on - the primary argument appears to be significant coverage, not youngest mayor - the youngest mayor argument appears secondary in response to the ONEEVENT claims. Nfitz ( talk) 15:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:1E was the original argument.
Also, even if the argument is SIGCOV, then it's SIGCOV before her death, as it's already obvious that there is SIGCOV at her death. But if SIGCOV cannot be found before her death then I support moving this article to Murder of Brigitte García. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 19:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
No. An admin will make the closure. The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
OK. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: not sure why it was even nominated. there is a significance coverage for reliable and independent sources, and I am talking about English sources without mentioning the plethora of non-English sources. whether you want to discuss a move or not, that should be done separately. But as far as Wikipedia notability, she is notable and deserve to be included. Can someone include her picture in the infobox, as she is dead it can be used under fair use.
FuzzyMagma ( talk) 09:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
What arguments do you have to consider her notable? 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Jalapeño, you've responded to practically every individual !vote here, some of them several times. This is excessive and approaching WP:BLUDGEON. It's not actually required that sources demonstrating someone's notability be published before their death, or we'd have a great deal of trouble with a lot of historical figures. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 09:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Gene Grimaldi

Gene Grimaldi (  | talk | history | 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 person is clearly a very prolific mastering engineer, but notability is not inherited. I don't think its unreasonable to state that "winning" awards by preforming audio work on albums released by other people doesn't count towards WP:MUSICBIO, unless the awards are specifically for audio technicians. This Pro Sound News piece is the only good profile of this guy I could find, and it alone isn't enough to show notability. Mach61 15:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

George E. Walker

AfDs for this article:
George E. Walker (  | talk | history | 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 independently notable per WP:BIO. Only thing is that he was related to the Bush's which does not qualify. Grahaml35 ( talk) 13:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete there is some material in the sources (but not used here) which may be of use in a Bush article , but this isn't it. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   13:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Jersey. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. He appears, by the very few accounts cited in the stub, to have been an ordinary farmer who contributed a tiny fraction of his DNA to two future presidents. That's not sufficient for inclusion. I am for inclusion of notable ancestors, and all parents, of United States Presidents, but this is a different story. I would not oppose a redirect or selective merge to the Bush family. Bearian ( talk) 17:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per WP:BIO. This guy, by himself, is not notable. He is worth a line or two, maybe a paragraph, in the Bush family article, and that's about it. Ted52 ( talk) 01:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Dave Wright (writer)

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

Autobiography of a poet with no viable claims of notability other than having had poems published. (Note, his one book of poetry, Riverwalkers, was published by the company he founded.) The one link to a review of one his works is a permanently dead link to a Blogspot page. Google searches turn up nothing. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ WikiDan61
https://books.google.com/books/about/Riverwalkers.html?id=F02HoAEACAAJ Google Books
Emmy Nomination: The Orphan Mother - Emmy-Nominated Book Promo on Vimeo https://vimeo.com/261493975
Pulse of the Alt-Net: A Conversation with Steve Roggenbuck - The Murfreesboro Pulse
How do I site self-published sales figures that don't qualify for any of the best selling lists but which are so high for a poetry collection that it made my book Riverwalkers probably in the top 5 Best Selling self-published Poetry Books of the 21st Century so far? Over 15,000 copies sold since 2013. I have the sales ledgers from Ingram, WalMart, Barnes & Noble, and Target Online to Prove it. In an open-market capitalist society, sales are the definition of noteworthy. Sorry I didn't buy off the free press like all the Major Publishers do for their "noteworthy" writers. Sorry I don't have "news" stories to cite in Wikipedia.
This article has been active for 9 years with all the same cited information as it has today. That a qualitative an true narrative has bee added about the writers life today hasn't changed the nature of the references that have been active since June 2015. Can you help me understand how this could have gone overlooked for almost 9 years? Geraldine85 ( talk) 14:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If Yall Dont Remove this Article, yall will be complicit in the spreading of real news. Geraldine85 ( talk) 14:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Geraldine85: Your comments raise a few issue:
  1. A link to the vimeo page for a book trailer, claiming that it was "Emmy-nominated" is not sufficient to verify that this film was actually ever nominated for an Emmy. (A link to the actual Emmy's website, listing the nomination, would be better. Note that a Google search for "Orphan Mother" +Emmy comes up empty.)
  2. Even if we can verify that this film was nominated for an Emmy, there is no indication of what Wright's role was in this film, other than "appearing" in it. The article does not claim that Wright was the one who was nominated for the Emmy.
  3. You don't self-cite sales figures. Unless they have been published in a reliable source, they are not useful at Wikipedia. Also, selling a lot of books is not part of the criteria for notable authors at Wikipedia. Significant, independent coverage in reliable sources is.
  4. You write your arguments in the first person. Are you, Geraldine, actually David Wright? This would constitute a significant conflict of interest.
WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 14:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
WikiDan! Is Dave Wright even a real person at all? I can't find a birth certificate to verify the bio claims. I have put in a request to the Office of vital Records in Davidson County, TN to see if we can even vet the existence of a Dave Wright.
I'm not convinced. Geraldine85 ( talk) 14:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
WikiDan! Wikipedia has been a primary target for hostile, fake "news" for about 10 years now. It is perhaps the most targeted website on the net. Subsequently, the number of completely fake articles that have made creative and effective use of aggregation techniques, et al, have made Wikipedia the unwitting foe of vetted, historical facts.
Those massive donation campaigns if years past seem to have been used elsewhere than infosec concerns.
So back to my... Dave's... this poet's Page. Created by Dlwright21 9 years ago... Should Can I help you vet?
Where should I begin? Geraldine85 ( talk) 14:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Tennessee. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTWEBHOST. I'm sorry to be rude, but the arguments made to keep this page are from 2006. In 2024, everybody knows what Wikipedia is, and is not. We are an encyclopedia of notable persons, places, things, and ideas; we have very strict requirements especially for living persons, to avoid defamation lawsuits and restrictive regulations like bills currently before the United States Congress and the UK parliament that want to destroy Wikipedia. We are a charity, not a free web host or social media website. There are lots of other options, from Youtube to "X", to Instagram, to get free coverage for poetry. Finally, we make it very well known that autobiographies, while not outright forbidden, are frowned upon, and are subject to especially strict scrutiny. In this particular case, there are zero reliable, independent, and national sources about the subject. For the record, we try to clean up false information as quicjkly as possible, but we are a volunteer-run charity. Bearian ( talk) 18:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources proving the subject's notability. This may be a case of " too soon," so once the subject has been covered by reliable sources I have no objection to the article existing. But for now, it's a delete.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 13:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Closing as keep since sources indicating notability are present, which can be incorporated into the article and can be used for further expansion. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 12:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Inshorts

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

Re-created article, twice deleted previously for not meeting WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Five references are used to cite the names of three personnel. Five more refer only to to VC funding rounds, leaving three for the actual company. Fails WP:SIGCOV and still doesn't meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Sources fail to establish WP:GNG as per nom.   Velella   Velella Talk   12:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral for now. Delete. No WP:CORPDEPTH present in the sources.— Alalch E. 13:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This AfD has reminded me of the importance of looking for sources, not relying on just those present in the article before forming an opinion and also why previous AfDs are not always relevant. Inshorts appears to have been the subject of an entire chapter in Digital First: Entrepreneurial Journalism in India, published in 2023 by Oxford University Press. This is perfect coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH: "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the...company." There's also some interesting coverage published by the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers. Coverage also from the Business Standard adds to the sense of general notability, and this is without searching in any of the many other languages of India. It appears to be one of the most-popular news apps in the world's most populous country (a democracy with a competitive news business). Find it hard to imagine a comparable American or British company being nominated for deletion. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thank you. I always look for sources but that OUP source is something I did not find. I will see about expanding the article using it. — Alalch E. 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I also missed that source. However, five days later, nobody has added content related to it, or included it as a reference, and we still only have a seven-sentence stub with five references used to cite the names of three personnel, and five more referring only to VC funding rounds, leaving three for the actual company. As it stands, sure, the company's app may well be hugely popular in India - but that's not in the article, either. Notability is not demonstrated. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • keep per AusLondonder. JoshuaZ ( talk) 20:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 1977 WFA Cup final. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Carrie Staley (English footballer)

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

She fails GNG. Sources in the article do not cover Staley in depth. An archive search only found mentions in match reports. Dougal18 ( talk) 11:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Many of the top hits are match reports. There is no sigcov of her in the articles. Dougal18 ( talk) 11:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 12:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Tamarack Developments Corporation

AfDs for this article:
Tamarack Developments Corporation (  | talk | history | 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 previous AfD was closed without consensus, and without any improvements since then, still fails notability guidelines, especially NCORP. BEFORE search turned no reliable search at least. Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 08:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 08:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, which would repeat the past result, it would be nice to establish one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🍪 Cookie Monster 11:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep the references from a quarter-century ago look good to me. Nfitz ( talk) 17:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final

Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final (  | talk | history | 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 men's Olympic football tournament is an under-23s tournament rather than proper full international. As such, there is no need to have separate articles for every final, unless that much is extraordinary and therefore has exceptional, WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020 men's finals do not achieve sustained coverage, and therefore are just an unnecessary WP:CFORK from the main articles about football at these Olympics. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Football at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment: What part of WP:CFORK policy indicates these articles are unnecessary? Looking at WP:BADFORK, it seems like only two types of content forks ("Pages of the same type on the same subject" and "Point of view (POV) forks") are considered unacceptable, and this article doesn't fit into either of those categories. On the other hand, it does seem to fit into the WP:GOODFORK criteria of Article spinoffs: "Summary style" meta-articles and summary sections, so that seems like it would be an argument for keeping the article. -- Habst ( talk) 13:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • A page that covers the same subject as another page of the same type is often called a "redundant content fork". The most common occurrence of redundant content forks results in 2 articles on the same thing; the extra one is a "redundant article fork". A separate article on the finals is not needed, when it could be covered perfectly well in the main articles e.g. Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament, and a split is not required as the article is not too long. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Joseph2302, thank you, I don't think that describes the current situation though. There is no redundancy because all the information in Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final isn't covered in the parent Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament. If it could be covered perfectly well, then I think that would need to be done first before a deletion decision is made. In fact, the gold medal match is only given a small four-line table in the parent article with no match details at all, and despite that the article is already pretty lengthy due to having to cover every other match as well. -- Habst ( talk) 13:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • A selective merge can be done if that's the consensus of this AFD. But creating separate articles for the finals of an under-23s tournament where the main article has almost no text about its matches isn't the correct article setup. the article is already pretty lengthy due to having to cover every other match as well. That article is long because it's filled with tables and WP:NOTSTATS violations, whereas prose is what that main article needs, as per MOS:PROSE. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Joseph2302, WP:NOTSTATS says that the solution to too many stats is actually to split them out into a separate article, which I believe is contradictory to the premise of this AfD wanting to remove content forks: Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. Prose can and should certainly be added, and there is definitely enough WP:GNG coverage to summarize, e.g. at [59] and [60]. But adding prose would only make the article longer, which would further necessitate a content fork. Thanks, -- Habst ( talk) 18:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The main article needs prose as per MOS:PROSE. Splitting the prose out into the final article instead of in the main article is not correct. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Joseph2302, thanks, I do agree with that. Because the main article needs prose and is already quite long, that would necessitate splitting out some sections into content fork articles, so I'll !vote to Keep this article on that merit combined with the above WP:GNG sourcing. -- Habst ( talk) 12:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep - inappropriate bundling, but in any event there appears to be coverage out there. Giant Snowman 19:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Easily meets the standards of WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED. The Olympics, and its football tournament, are also clearly notable events. Anwegmann ( talk) 16:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – It is exactly the finals from 2008 to now that have received enough attention from the media. In the 70s/80s there is indeed a lack of coverage, but these last four finals have extensive sources in different languages ​​available online. Svartner ( talk) 17:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:SPINOFF. I think the 2008 article needs further fleshing out, but otherwise I think the Olympic finals for the men probably stand on their own as valid spinoffs. Jay eyem ( talk) 19:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Firstly, it's not a strict U-23 tournament. It does allow for some players of any age or salary to participate on each team. Secondly, deletion was never an option here, as it would be a redirect - so it's a WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD failure. And how does one think there wouldn't be significant coverage? Nfitz ( talk) 18:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 12:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

David Shimer

David Shimer (  | talk | history | 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 apologize if this is not a good nomination I don't normally deal with biographies. He doesn't seem that notable based on Wikipedia:Notability_(people) criteria , having only published one book and that book does not seem to be that impactful to me. EvilxFish ( talk) 10:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: This strikes me as having been written by the author. Ambleside1805 ( talk) 23:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Thiruchitrambalam (soundtrack). (non-admin closure) NotAGenious ( talk) 07:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thaai Kelavi

Thaai Kelavi (  | talk | history | 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 song. Can easily be merged with Thiruchitrambalam (soundtrack). Charliehdb ( talk) 10:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

J. Sivaneswaran

J. Sivaneswaran (  | talk | history | 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 GNG and NPOL Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 09:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Data is correct only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigneswarapandian ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. Poor sources with no notable coverage on the subject. The subject does not seem to warrant a biographical page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded. RangersRus ( talk) 12:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Mostly all the reference added. Will add few reference Vigneswarapandian ( talk) 01:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but the article is referenced entirely to a mixture of run of the mill campaign coverage in the context of his non-winning campaigns and primary sourcing that does not support notability at all, so nothing else here establishes that he has preexisting notability for other reasons besides non-winning candidacies at all. Bearcat ( talk) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Data is correct and accurate. All information are true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40F4:102B:A92B:6591:BAC2:2B96:3244 ( talk) 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Asserting that the article is "correct and accurate" is not sufficient. The article doesn't just have to be accurate, it also has to be (a) supported by WP:GNG-worthy referencing that verifies its accuracy, and (b) meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Bearcat ( talk) 18:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nomination and above comments. Sk1728 ( talk) 11:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 French-Russian Aerial incident

2024 French-Russian Aerial incident (  | talk | history | 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:GNG and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects, no sustained coverage – and indeed the very existence of the incident is denied by one of the parties. Rosbif73 ( talk) 08:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Support WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Fails WP:SUSTAINED, WP:GNG and fails WP:LASTING. The Russian victory stated is very dubious as one party even denies an incident happened. Not particularly noteworthy of an article. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 13:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete What a confusing article. "Russian victory" in the sense that France didn't violate their airspace and were 40 kilometres away? Obviously this article about a non-existent incident fails every notability policy imaginable. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I too am confused. How does one "violate international airspace"? Surely the whole point of international airspace is that it can't be violated? Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Same situation as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2024 Polish airspace violation: this event is not notable in the larger course of the war, and, as per above, fails WP:NOTNEWS. Gödel2200 ( talk) 13:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: The "victory" earned by Russia isn't even a victory, the French planes didn't want to be involved in conflict. I would presume the Russians didn't want to do the same because of NATO's Article 5, so a removal of the article probably is best. 70.167.194.163 ( talk) 18:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Mustapha Ali Busuguma

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

Article about a non-notable politician and lawyer. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO as lawyer. Sources are basically passing mentions of the subject. Per WP:NPOL being a private secretary to a governor does not confer notability. Jamiebuba ( talk) 08:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle of Sutlej

Battle of Sutlej (  | talk | history | 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 Surjit Singh Gandhi and the Encyclopedia of Sikhism, all the sources are unreliable and have been thoroughly and repeatedly deprecated such as the Suraj Granth (a primary source written in the 1700s) and Macauliffe (a RAJ era source). Harish Dhillon is a self published source; the author was a headmaster/principal of schools which enrolled middle school children- [65] according to his book's acknowledgements. The coverage in both aforementioned sources fails Wikipedia's guidelines for significant coverage by a long shot- [66] as they only include a small paragraph about the battle. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk) 06:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete While the battle happened, there are not enough reliable sources for it to merit its own article. We can acknowledge the battle by including a sentence in Mughal-Sikh Wars. Ixudi ( talk) 20:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Tropical fascism

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

Something of a pro forma nomination: Svejk74 has made a few comments on the talk page going back several years to the effect that this article ought to be deleted, but said that they weren't really sure how to file an AfD. Honestly, it would probably give a better impression of what they've said to just go there and read it, but I will also transcribe it here for convenience.

(April 2020): So, looking closely at this article (which I only noticed as people kept linking it from the Khmer Rouge article): 

   Started by a banned user
   Most references didn't actually support the text
   I'm still not sure that the whole thing isn't just based on a few occurences of the phrase "tropical fascism" in a couple of books; it's certainly not a concept in "African political science" as the article originally tried to make out.

(December 2021): To reiterate my previous points:

- No evidence of this existing as a defined political concept before the Wikipedia article was started, beyond a few uses of "tropical" as a simple adjective

- None of the references originally cited supported the article

- The Portugese article has exactly the same issues, being a compilation of various statements about various quite different regimes that have been defined as 'fascist'

As stated in the opening to the article that I added a couple of years back, it seems to have been a phrase occasionally used to describe different post-colonial regimes, not a defined political concept.

[in response to a couple of references]

I would be cautious of citing anything published after the creation of this article; academics aren't above picking up phrases from Wikipedia!

I would be interested to see what the two older, Brazilian references say but again I suspect they are more likely discussing the Fascist characteristics of the Brazilian military government; also note the original Wikipedia article referred to Tropical Fascism" as a concept in "African political science" specifically.

- There is no evidence of "Tropical Fascism" existing as a defined political concept before the Wikipedia article was started, beyond a few uses of "tropical" as a simple adjective. I checked, extensively, for references in journal articles, books, anywhere pre 2014. Nothing. This is unsurprising, as the concept never actually existed.

- None of the references originally cited supported the article. They didn't talk about a distinct concept of 'tropical Fascism'; if anything they simply drew attention to quasi-Fascist aspects of a variety of (very different) postcolonial regimes.

- The Portugese article has exactly the same issues, being a compilation of various statements about various quite different regimes that have been defined as 'fascist'

As stated in the opening to the article that I added a couple of years back, it seems to have been a phrase occasionally used to describe different post-colonial regimes, not a defined political concept. In short, the user who originally created this article effectively made up the concept of "tropical Fascism", which they stated was a concept in "African political science" (it isn't, or at least wasn't until it was invented for the purposes of the article). It's OR.

(February 2022): - There is no evidence of "Tropical Fascism" existing as a defined political concept before the Wikipedia article was started, beyond a few uses of "tropical" as a simple adjective. I checked, extensively, for references in journal articles, books, anywhere pre 2014. Nothing. This is unsurprising, as the concept never actually existed.

- None of the references originally cited supported the article. They didn't talk about a distinct concept of 'tropical Fascism'; if anything they simply drew attention to quasi-Fascist aspects of a variety of (very different) postcolonial regimes.

- The Portugese article has exactly the same issues, being a compilation of various statements about various quite different regimes that have been defined as 'fascist'

As stated in the opening to the article that I added a couple of years back, it seems to have been a phrase occasionally used to describe different post-colonial regimes, not a defined political concept. In short, the user who originally created this article effectively made up the concept of "tropical Fascism", which they stated was a concept in "African political science" (it isn't, or at least wasn't until it was invented for the purposes of the article). It's OR, and dubious, slightly racist OR at that. Are we supposed to believe that there is a distinct variety of Fascism practiced by people living in "tropical" latitudes?

A user appears to be using this article as a soapbox to add various opinions about the Brazilian regime. They might be better addressed at the Brazil page than here.


Personally, I am inclined to agree with Svejk's analysis in this case: it really doesn't seem like this is a distinct concept. It seems like a "very large cake" thing: you can find lots of instances where people use the phrase "very large cake" in newspapers/books, but this doesn't mean that Very large cake should be a Wikipedia article, since it is not a coherent concept. jp× g 🗯️ 07:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • JPxG, I look at hundreds of AFDs every week and I don't understand this one. Could you condense all of this into a 2-3 sentence deletion rationale that is posted at the top of the page? I doubt many editors will wade into this wall of text to discern the nuances of your argument. Please be concise if you want to invite editors to participate in this discussion. Just my advice. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Basically, what the fellow said on the talk page: there's not really any evidence that people are using this as a term, rather than as an adjective to describe a noun. jp× g 🗯️ 08:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you, that's very helpful. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Africa, Asia, and South America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: May be suited for an entry on Wiktionary, since it is little more than a descriptive term, but not something worthy of covering on wikipedia. As Svejk74 says, it isn't an actual concept in African, or really any other set of political sciences, and most of the parties and governments some users have sought to add to the article dont even meet an adequate number of the criteria needed to be described as fascist, rather than just bordering on it! Vif12vf/Tiberius ( talk) 15:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - on the basis that this page appears to be WP:SYNTH. The term exists in published works, but it isn't immediately clear whether the authors are actually talking about the same thing or using the same definition for it. JMWt ( talk) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom., Vif12vf, JMWt, and WP:SYNTH. Sal2100 ( talk) 19:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Fabio Dias

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

No claim that means WP:GNG. Lecturer status doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC; a search doesn't reveal coverage in reliable sources; Google Scholar shows at H-factor of 3, suggesting that there is little output (so far in his academic career) and/or that it has had little impact. Being a partner in a hedge manager with AUM of circa £1 million seems insufficient. Klbrain ( talk) 06:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Finance, Computing, England, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC). reply
  • Keep I disagree that he does not satisfy the notability requirements. He satisfies point 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. How many academics out there have become managing partners of hedge funds and stayed as academics leading their universities towards industry specific training with distinguished institutions such as Bloomberg L.P.? Giving industry talks at international professional summits while teaching their students simultaneously? As an example, Nick Anstead is also “only” a lecturer and yet there is a page for him because of contributions that he made to the outside world. Similarly Ashley Hickson-Lovence, Sanjay Jain, Paul Melo e Castro and Jeremy Munday. I see Dr Dias even more notable than these given the reach and influence of the hedge fund industry. We need to value our teachers that spend more time transferring knowledge and less time making publications just because they are doing more practical things for the students. He has contributed significantly outside of academia (academia meaning publications, which is what the H index is about) in his academic capacity, which is what the notability requirement is about. The H index is just one of many different ways of reaching notability. I disclose that I do not have a personal relationship with Dr Dias, but I was his student last year. We don’t have any professional or personal relationship since. I consulted with other students and we agreed that a Wikipedia page was warranted in his case. Several parents wanted to know more about Dr Fabio Dias during university talks and the right place for them to find this information is exactly an encyclopedia. Contributor892z 12:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. Assistant professors (or equivalently in the UK, lecturers) usually do not pass WP:PROF and he seems no exception. Weak citation record [67] definitely fails WP:PROF#C1. No evidence of WP:GNG-based notability. PROF#C7, as argued above, is only for people so famous as being academic experts in some specialty that they are frequently sought after by the media for quotes on stories relating to that specialty, for which we also lack evidence. Keeping one foot in academia and the other in finance is not a notability criterion. Giving talks as an academic is routine and expected, not a notability criterion. The rest of contributor's arguments above reduce to WP:WAX. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don’t want to leave the impression that I have a conflict of interest on this particular article being published; you can see in my history that I have made other articles too about other academics. Having said that, looks like the only issue with WP:PROF#C7 is that I haven’t presented evidence of him being sought after by national UK media for quotes and opinion as an expert, but I am aware that these exist. I believe WP:ATD-I and WP:DRAFTIFY apply as the article is still quite new and I may have rushed moving this article to the main space. With enough time, I can find between 5-10 independent and significant examples of national media coverage about the subject, and then send the article back for review. Contributor892z ( talk) 00:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    If as you claimed earlier you were his student, then you are a student at the same institution and you have an institutional COI, at least. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not anymore, I graduated already. I gain nothing promoting the place I graduated from and, frankly, they don’t need me for that. Contributor892z ( talk) 19:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. For certain he does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, and the current article does not prove other notability -- please not the word prove. We cannot bend the rules for him as this would open floodgates, notability has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, in many respects it is Guilty until proven innocent in WP:BLP. Ldm1954 ( talk) 13:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. He satisfies points 5 and 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. In UK-based systems, that have no tenure-track, the meaning of the title "lecturer" is totally different than what it means in US-based systems. Responsabilities matter more titles. Econbrazil ( talk) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) — Econbrazil ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    In UK-based systems, the meaning of the title "lecturer" is an entry-level academic position, roughly equivalent to "assistant professor" in US-based systems. It is very far from #C5, which is supposed to mean a step beyond ordinary full professors. The UK has full professors. Lecturers are two or three steps below them. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I agree with you on C#5 but that may have just been a career choice. But I am sure that there is material out there that proves C#7 or GNG, I just need time to search. As I said, I don’t gain anything with getting this article published, but I want to have the chance to set things right by moving this article to draft and adding extra evidence when I have time to find it. Contributor892z ( talk) 19:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:Common_claims_of_significance_or_importance#ACADEMIC states that a non-professor teacher at an institute of higher learning with a reputation in excellence is enough argument to keep the page as those institutions are not known for employing sub-par academics. University of Surrey is a top 90 university in the world for business and economics, higher rank than [[ Pennsylvania State University]], in the US. A top 90 world university don’t hire bad academics. So I call here the WP:PTEST. I saw in the article history that Sanjay Jain was proposed for deletion and kept because he was a non-professor at a top university. Same rules should apply here. Econbrazil ( talk) 00:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Neither GNG or PROF notability have been established. nf utvol ( talk) 18:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Found it! I have now added to the article evidence of significant coverage at national level in Brazil. I hope that will settle the case. Contributor892z ( talk) 22:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The subject does not meet any of the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC to be considered sufficiently notable at this time. WmLawson ( talk) 02:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, as suggested, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Dylan Jacob

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

Founder of a non-notable company. Article has been tagged for improvements since 2019 and is largely unsourced. Subject has appeared on Forbes' "30 under 30" list, but I'm not sure if this is enough for establishing notability. CycloneYoris talk! 04:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: This is clearly a PR item, but it's all I could find [68]. There are no RS talking about this person. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Lean delete. I really tried a WP:BEFORE, but there are dozens of guys with the same name. If you find better sources, please ping me. I've given up. Bearian ( talk) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tamil films of 1999#October — December. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Mudhal Etcharikkai

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Can't find in this source. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Scion (comics)

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

Comic series, short-lived (4-years), unreferenced since 2007, my BEFORE failed to find anything useful. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V. If nobody can rescue this, potential redirects targets per WP:ATD-R: [[ Mark Alessi]] (co-creator), CrossGen (publisher). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United States of America. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comments - Looks like Publishers Weekly reviewed the third, fourth, and fifth trade paperback collections of the series. Those were the best sources I was able to find, though, and per the WP:GNG, would collectively count as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Rorshacma ( talk) 02:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I found a good source in the Daily Oklahoman that mentions it was nominated at one point for two Harvey awards. Nominations aren't something that would give notability on their own, but this is a major enough award to imply that there is likely more coverage out there. I'll keep digging. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is frustrating - I found some sourcing but it's kind of light and a lot of it is reviewing it in relation to the overall CrossGen universe. The Harvey noms suggests that more coverage exists but what I can find doesn't really do a great job of backing all of that up. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Perhaps a good alternative would be to create a page on the entire Sigilverse? There's enough info and general coverage to justify pulling that info out to its own, particularly as I note that this isn't the only title with some issues with sourcing. Of course someone would have to make this and I'm not really flush with time like I used to be. If the choice is to create the page then this could redirect with history to the main company page until someone does that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, that's the same issue I was running into looking for sources - there are a number of sources discussing CrossGen as a whole, but the only coverage in them on Scion, in specific, was usually only very brief mentions. If not a whole article on the Sigilverse, perhaps expanding CrossGen#Sigilverse to be more than just a list of the titles included in it could work as well? Rorshacma ( talk) 21:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I've nominted this on pl wiki ( pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:03:11:Dziedzic (komiks)). One editor there found a source: [69]/ [70] which has a passing mention of this, which I'l quote fully - it is just two sentences, but it has a bit of analysis/reception: One of the most intriguing epic fantasies was CrossGen’s Scion , which began in 2000 and ended abruptly in 2004 with the demise of the publisher. Th e story combines romance and politics, as a prince and princess from opposing dynasties fall in love but also fi ght for the freedom of the “lesser races.”. Perhaps we can save this? Nomnation, passing assessment in SIGCOV but relible source? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I believe the secondary sources listed here and in the article in total allow to write a reasoable article and therefore fulfill the notability requirements. The Publishers Weekly reviews can complement the relatively brief referenced reception section we already have. Daranios ( talk) 11:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help if those editors commenting in this discussion offered their opinion on what should happen to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - In order to help build a consensus, I am going to go ahead and recommend a Keep for this current discussion, with no prejudice against a subsequent discussion for any potential Mergers. While the sources are still pretty scarce, there is enough that outright Deletion is out of the question, and simply redirecting without some kind of Merge would not really be appropriate. The series might still warrant being merged to a broader topic about CrossGen or the Silverse, as discussed, but that possibility can be decided outside of the current AFD. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2018 Oceania Youth Olympic Games Qualifier (girls' field hockey)

2018 Oceania Youth Olympic Games Qualifier (girls' field hockey) (  | talk | history | 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:SPORTSEVENT, no third party coverage and is basically a results listing. Also nominating similar article:

LibStar ( talk) 04:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Traditional Chinese marriage. If another target article is preferred, editors can either BE BOLD or start a discussion on the Redirect talk page or WP:RFD Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Southern Chinese wedding

Southern Chinese wedding (  | talk | history | 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 topic might be notable, although my BEFORE fails to find anything. I would not be surprised if sources existed in Chinese, but the linked zh article is even worse than ours, and what we have is an unreferenced WP:OR with a single EL to a defunct website that does not look reliable. There is something a bit better at Chinese pre-wedding customs, where a talk discussion suggests a merge of this was proposed a while back. Lack of references prevents us from doing any merge, so redirecting is the least destructive option if anyone thinks this should be preserved. Anyway, to summarize, notability is not proven and the article fails OR and WP:V. PS. Another valid redirect target would be Traditional Chinese marriage where Chinese wedding redirects currently. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2016 Regent Plaza hotel fire

2016 Regent Plaza hotel fire (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

12 of the 13 sources are all from December 2016. The other source merely confirms the hotel exists. No evidence of lasting effects or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 03:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tamil films of 2008#July–September. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Azhaipithazh

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

Cannot find reliable secondary which are needed for articles to exist. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources#Not reliable -- Filmibeat is unreliable. 2 sources about director dying. Needs 2 reliable reviews -- bharatstudent.com is likely unreliable (no link on Wikipedia). DareshMohan ( talk) 01:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: NN film with no multiple reviews from independent and notable reviewers. Sk1728 ( talk) 10:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 01:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Golden Scythe Horror Awards

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

completely and utterly non notable award, created by an LTA (see Caillou Pettis and associated SPI cases, etc...) with no significant or meaningful coverage in actual RS. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I can only find Instagram and The Movie Blog posts about this award, not seeing notability. No coverage outside of these sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a quick look tells me it's some kind of elaborated hoax. No serious sources at all, don't think there's any event or any awards at all. Tehonk ( talk) 06:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I doubt it's a hoax in the strictest sense, and more likely a thing Caillou Pettis invented by himself and announces "winners" of by himself. The dude's been such a relentlessly self-promoting and self-Wikipedia-inserting wannabe in the past that this is probably just his latest "get myself into Wikipedia by any means possible" scheme. Bearcat ( talk) 18:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Christmas crackers, not this Caillou Pettis dude again. As always, awards are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in real media, not self-promotion on social networking or blogs. Bearcat ( talk) 17:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Solano, Nueva Vizcaya#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Aldersgate College

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

Unreferenced since 2008. No notable references from GNews, GSearch and Google News Archives. Alternatively, redirect to Solano,_Nueva_Vizcaya#Education-- Lenticel ( talk) 01:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 01:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Lázaro Reyes

Lázaro Reyes (  | talk | history | 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:SIGCOV. Several searches, using different keywords, brought up nothing but database pages. Anwegmann ( talk) 01:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to Attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Bryansk drone strikes

2024 Bryansk drone strikes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely not notable. Randomly one of the many [71] Ukrainian strikes against Russian oil facilities got an article. Merge to Attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 00:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 01:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yorky Arriagada

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Chilean women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this transactional announcement from a hometown publication and this story on some community service work she did. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 01:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Kevin Kandala

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Herbert Chikomba

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 01:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Shoun Handirisi

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was a pair of sentences here. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Baxon Gopito

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. The Keep arguments aren't strongly policy-based but then neither is the deletion rationale which, to summarize, basically states that Wikipedia doesn't need this article. That's not a strong reason to delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle of the Tendra Spit

Battle of the Tendra Spit (  | talk | history | 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 actually didn't know this had happened despite following news on the war. It's definitively interesting. However it's just one of the many Ukrainian landing incursions that have happened in the occupied southern territories. So far these have been covered at Dnieper campaign (2022–present). As you can see by looking at the article there have been many such operations, with some being of a longer and larger extent than this one, and yet they don't have their own article. I think this should be merged there. We can't give an article to every single individual operation of this war. Super Ψ Dro 00:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST: The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Just because there have been many such operations and most do not have their own articles, some of which may be more deserving of one, does not mean that there is anything wrong with an editor singling one out and expanding it into an article. ( WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) The separate article provides information for the reader at a level of detail not available in the main article, and merging it into the main article would be WP:UNDUE.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Keepthe battle was a separate landing from the Deniper campaign. Also the tendra split is located in the Black Sea. Not the Deniper river Salfanto ( talk) 02:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Also I spelt Dnieper wrong. My bad Salfanto ( talk) 12:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and move I agree with those above who say that this cannot be adequately covered in any other article. But the current title, "Battle of the Tendra Spit," does not seem to be sourced. While many sources refer to the event taking place as a battle (such as this one), it doesn't seem like any of them are refering to it as "the Battle of the Tendra Spit." Gödel2200 ( talk) 13:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_March_25&oldid=1216841240"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 24 March 26 >

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yesterday (time)

Yesterday (time) (  | talk | history | 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 should be deleted as per WP:DICDEF, and converted into a {{ Soft redirect}} to the Wiktionary definition. The article's content currently consists of a dictionary definition, and a brief touch upon its usage in learning and language. Sources that could be added are flooded out with things named due to the word, but not about the concept itself. Furthermore, as the article itself states, the concept of "yesterday" in time is abstract, and far too broad for a dedicated article, and could reasonably be discussed in spin-off articles, e.g Yesterday in fiction, Yesterday in philosophy, etc. If this nomination passes, I intend to nominate Tomorrow (time) alongside it, since the same rationale applies with that article as well. I'm not opposed to a potential merger of Yesterday and Tomorrow as an alternative to deletion. Bandit Heeler ( talk) 23:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Science, and Mathematics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. It's not just a dicdef. It includes much more information. It can be improved, but that is not for WP:AfD. Bearian ( talk) 17:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The information is hardly "much more". As I said, it consists of a dictionary definition, and a very brief touch upon its usage in learning and language. I am aware that Afd is not clean-up. Bandit Heeler ( talk) 21:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'd strongly urge adding Tomorrow (time) to the current AFD instead of waiting for this one to finish, as it's essentially an identical case. I tend to lean delete here, but there is some potential information that might go beyond a dicdef -- namely, some sort of comparison of how different languages denote relative time. But what's here is pretty slight, and would probably be better off in some other article dedicated to that topic (I'm not sure if there is one, or how well one could be carved out though). Also, the Tomorrow article has a note on children's understanding of the term at different ages, but again, that's probably better off at some sort of article about child psychology and time, or something like that. 35.139.154.158 ( talk) 05:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Certainly not a WP:DICDEF. Bhivuti45 ( talk) 10:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Very useful discussion about the hesternal tense, not a WP:DICDEF by any means. Contributor892z ( talk) 18:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: not a WP:DICDEF, and we still have " today" and " tomorrow", so either recommended a massive delete under this reason (which I'd oppose) or leave yesterday alone. FuzzyMagma ( talk) 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment - all of the 'keep' votes thus far have consisted of some variation of 'not a WP:DICDEF', not based in policy (just saying 'not a DICDEF' without explaining why is not an argument), and not countering the fact that I already mentioned it's only a brief touch on other subjects. I haven't seen anything compelling indicating that this is a WP:WORDISSUBJECT, otherwise I would have withdrawn the nomination at this point. The fact that someone considers the one sentence mention of the hesternal tense 'useful' is not a policy based argument and is purely subjective. ( WP:USEFUL). Bandit Heeler ( talk) 17:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) voorts ( talk/ contributions) 01:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Miguel Mies

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

Sources used are all primary: either interviews quoting him, his profiles on university websites, or even his research articles. His personal website lists multiple media appearances, but they are all either interviews or articles by his university, so no independent secondary sources here. The best sources could be this one which repeatedly quotes Mies on his research and even has a paragraph quoting a researcher critical of Mies' work, and this one which discusses his team's research in detail and briefly quotes him. However, neither seems to rise to the level of a full secondary source significantly covering him.
The only other things found in a quick WP:BEFORE are, comparatively, not very interesting: a mention as contributor in a book in Google Books, more databases [1] [2] [3] [4], a team presentation and his research articles on Google Scholar. Nothing close to establishing notability. Chaotıċ Enby ( talk · contribs) 22:21, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It's helpful to share sources that can help establish notability but it is unrealistic to list 34 as if participants have the time to check each one. User:Weitkemp can you narrow that down to 3 or 4 that best illustrate your argument to Keep this article? And while it doesn't really matter when an article subject received their PhD, it is more likely that an academic would have receive sufficient coverage when they have progressed further in their career.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Nowhere near a pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC). reply
  • Keep per above arguments. Meets WP:PROF as it stands - I think deletionists should get a consensus to deprecate Point #7 of WP:NPROF. Otherwise, academics like Mies are notable if they are widely cited in the mainstream media as an expert. Academics from Brazil are just as notable as those from the U.S. Also, RE to Liz, WP:GNG is not mandatory for academics. 89.23.224.133 ( talk) 22:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unclear where this discussion stands now that the nominator is arguing to Keep this article but hasn't withdrawn their nomination. With some editors advocating Delete, it wouldn't lead to a Speedy Keep here but it might make a difference in how editors are viewing the nom's argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Premalatha Vijayakanth

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

General Secretary of unrepresented party, previously stood for election. Fails WP:NPOL. News coverage seems to primarily be about her husband, and the party in the context of the upcoming election. AusLondonder ( talk) 23:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: Per nomination. Non-elected politician without constitutional office, fails WP:NPOL. General Secretary role in an unrepresented party is not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Sk1728 ( talk) 11:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Per WP:NPOL. Notable largely for being the wife of a notable person. - Fylindfotberserk ( talk) 12:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete fails WP:NPOL. -- Devoke water 01:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails NPOL. Bhivuti45 ( talk) 10:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this wikipage has just been redirected to Premallatha Vijayakant this page needs to be deleted too -- Devoke water 16:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

F-WUAB (Airbus A300B4-203)

F-WUAB (Airbus A300B4-203) (  | talk | history | 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 aircraft. All three sources, one of which is unreliable, are just passing mentions and do not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There is no evidence why the 238th aircraft is notable. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep and merge - This article is new, and I suggest that someone update the article to have more significant coverage or even merge it with the A300B1 in preservation into one article. 14.201.100.184 ( talk) 00:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I’ve merged the content 14.201.100.184 ( talk) 00:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    And I've undone it.
    There should be a consensus decision, to my understanding, before things like this are done.
    I undid all three. The page you merged them into just passed AfC as a disambiguation page specifically.
    Also, notes about deletion discussions on articles shouldn't just be removed. Please wait for consensus when there's a discussion about what should happen.
    ((Meanwhile, I know nothing about airplanes, so I have no vote on that matter. Now I'm off to fix the ref names b/c those articles "merging" caused a huge problem.)) OIM20 ( talk) 06:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per GNG. Bhivuti45 ( talk) 10:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 12:27, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

College of International Education

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

This article has clearly been created only for the purposes of promoting the organisation. It is clearly not notable - there are no articles online about it I can find. It seems to be largely sourced from the CIE website itself, or unsourced. DansterTheManster ( talk) 17:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, I totally agree. The organization seems completely unimportant in the scheme of things and surely not deserving of an article. Gnilhtrae ( talk) 17:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 11:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

List of Darkstalkers characters

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

Less than a week ago, I merged the contents of this list into Darkstalkers#Characters after condensing it down. However, Zxcvbnm objected, citing the previous AfD's consensus.

However, I'm not arguing overlying notability for the characters as a whole separate of the franchise (which is a concern on its own vs reception for individual characters, but I digress), but instead that the list itself does not need to be a separate entity. As you can see from the link above, it fits perfectly inside the series article, without making it too large, the key concerns for such a split here normally.

I don't feel in its current form a massive list is necessary, and I don't forsee it getting expanded further (the last new character added was Dee in 2005, almost 20 years ago). As it stands, there's no need for a separate article to compound our already overflowing list problem. Kung Fu Man ( talk) 19:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

EDIT: For the sake of transparency, this was the version of the list's page prior to reorganizing, which not only included excessive detail randomly, but also random gameplay bits, trivial reception from past merges, and some very questionable sources (EventHubs, "Flying Omelette"?). The goal of the original reduction was to aim closer to more streamlined lists, and then cite any information as needed. This got interrupted mid-cleanup efforts.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Assuming no information is being lost, I am not opposed to a merge to Darkstalkers#Characters. Captain Galaxy 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep 2: Electric Boogaloo Similar to the last AfD, deletion is not cleanup and there's no particular reason a character list should not exist, as these sorts of articles are VERY well established on Wikipedia. It was shown that the article can certainly stand on its own if improved, as the cast of Darkstalkers is one of the more well-known in video game history. "Overflowing list problem" is a personal opinion and it's impossible to tell whether or not it will be improved, as you are no fortune-teller. That's simply a WP:NOEFFORT argument. If you really want to see it fixed, your time's better spent fixing it than arguing it should be removed. See also WP:BEBOLD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Zx your argument falls into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because "other articles" are established does not mean that one cannot be merged. This not a "No Effort" approach or a lack of "Being Bold", that's an honest observation from someone that has put a fair share of research into this subject. Additionally this is not an attempt at "cleanup" but to make an argument that the list itself does not need to be separate from the parent, which is fair game for AfD to determine consensus. So I will ask that you assume some good faith, and to not be rude.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 22:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    It does not fall under OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because I am not arguing this article should be kept because it's the same as another particular article. I said that this TYPE of article is common, which implies it is typical under Wikipedia policy. Unless you are arguing that all character lists should not exist, which is not really an issue to be decided in a single AfD, but something like RfC. I didn't mean to marginalize the effort you put into the merger, but cutting something down tends to be easier than building it up. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    It does feel like the argument fits into a form of OTHERSTUFF, because the argument's being made that similar lists are considered "acceptable" on their own on wikipedia, which is debatable on a case by case basis. And I feel significant effort was done to maintain the reader has an understanding of each character in the context of the franchise. If all the information is retained in the series article as it is in the list, how is any information lost?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This makes the other article too long if put there. Having it separate makes it more readable. Kung Fu Man made the article in October 2008‎. It was far longer through most of its existence. In December 2023, Kung Fu Man reduced it from 84K to 15K. [43] 104 references down to 7. I think some of the referenced information where reliable sources talked about the characters should be included. Also the overview chart showing which games had which notable characters should've been kept. Dream Focus 21:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Most of the refs appear to have shuffled off to standalone character articles so no information appears to have been lost. —  Masem ( t) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      There is only one standalone character article, Morrigan Aensland, the rest are just redirects to here. Kung Fu Man seems to have merged them over here last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Baby_Bonnie_Hood&diff=1154824604&oldid=1154823810 Dream Focus 21:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      Given KFM's work on character articles and cleaning up bad sourcing, I trust that these trims and removal of sources followed in line with eliminating sources that barely touched on the subject, along with excessive primary sourcing. This judging from a scan of the ore trimmed version and where sources were used. Masem ( t) 23:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      I will say that I would have objected more to the mergers of the various characters if I knew that the character list was set to be merged too. Moving them all to a list is due weight. Moving them all to the series article is undue weight. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 23:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      This is an important point that bears a lot of scrutiny. Non-transparently planning to eliminate content via repeated mergers is arguably tendentious editing. You want 'em all gone? Fine: nominate them all. Don't merge them all editorially... and then force a re-merge in AfD so there's very little left. Jclemens ( talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      This, plus many perfectly reliable sources demonstrating WP:LISTN were purged from the character list for some reason and I frankly have no clue why they were removed, with the only thing I can think of being to make the article seem less notable for a deletion or merge. Why purge the character list from HG101, or GamesRadar? It makes no sense; this is literally a list of characters from the game, so it's absolutely relevant. I tried to add a bit back in, but I'm of half a mind to revert the article gutting entirely. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      You know, considering that you had just previously took umbrage over the implication that you were applying double standards based on whether an article whose notability is being questioned is one you made or not, I find it kind of distasteful to go around and suggest an editor in good standing is, in essence, intentionally doing harm to the project for nefarious purposes. I don't think it's right to show such offense over that if you do not extend the same level of courtesy to other users. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 09:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Policy and guidelines argue against unnecessary splits of material, and the nom demonstrates that a merged article is nowhere close to a size problem where a split would be required. Add that there are no non-primary sources, and that supports including the content in the main article to avoid notability issues with the list. Zxcvbnm's argument amounts to a form of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; character lists like this with minimal sourcing are tolerated but I would not consider them widely accepted. Masem ( t) 21:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Speedy Keep The topic of "List of X characters" is "X" so as long as Darkstalkers exists List of Darkstalkers characters is not subject to deletion on notability grounds. NOTINHERITED doesn't apply, because this is the same topic covered in multiple articles. Now, if things fail V or NOR, that's a different issue, but usually one that can be addressed by editing rather than deletion. More to the point: of all the problems in Wikipedia, who thinks that collapsing character lists into their franchises is in the top 10? Jclemens ( talk) 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Clemens, not a single thing there addressed my argument.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 22:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    You're right, I suppose. What precise DEL#REASON applies? Jclemens ( talk) 23:49, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Content fork in this case: the information here can fit inside the series article without a loss of material, and stuff like development and reception would apply just as much to the series as the list. No information would be lost, and no need to keep them separate. Articles can still be spun out from the series page just fine also if notability is established for a character later on.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 23:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I'm not seeing how a character list is an impermissible WP:CFORK. It's neither redundant nor a POV fork. Jclemens ( talk) 00:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    It's currently an unnecessary fork, and an argument can be further made that it strengthens the body of the series article as a result versus separate from it, and again the dev and reception info would be echoed between the series article and list. It's not a Street Fighter or Guilty Gear situation where we have entry upon entry for many of the characters: Darkstalkers at its core only has two truly "full" games between Darkstalkers/Night Warriors and the many iterations of Vampire Savior.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 01:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    If all you want is to merge the articles, why is this a nomination for deletion instead of just a merge request? It seems like doing this at AfD just makes the discussion more stressful. Toughpigs ( talk) 02:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Information from the article is still in the series article currently, so "Redirect" is a valid option here. But more importantly is that it was quickly obvious this was going to be a contentious subject. AfD is viable for this sort of discussion, especially compared to how much of a mess merge discussions have become where they stretch months on end before requesting a closer, at least as far as VG project articles go.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 02:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    So you've just admitted that there is no reason this content is impermissible: No WP:CFORK violation exists, no other WP:DEL#REASON applies. Am I wrong? If so, please point me out the policy-based rationale for starting this deletion discussion. I'm just not seeing it. Jclemens ( talk) 05:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Again, the content on the list can fit into the main series article just fine without a loss of information; the current series article demonstrates that. Can we not engage in wikilawyering?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 05:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Wikilawyering is defined as "Willfully misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities". Asking for a basic policy reason when you gave none (besides "it's not necessary", more of a WP:USELESS argument) is not a technicality. There's something wrong if you think that anyone who dares argue a different opinion is being a Wikilawyer. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Upgrading my keep to speedy keep per #3: no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Look, I'm fine with using AfD as articles for discussion--I quite favor it, in fact--but the price of entry is that you have to provide at least one rationale by which the target article could be deleted. I've asked. You haven't. So you can take this to a talk page discussion, but AfD should not be asked to compel a merge outcome when there is no policy-based deletion rationale articulated. Jclemens ( talk) 06:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Can someone point me in the right direction of the policy towards where a list merits an article? Or...is there any policy on lists? Putting aside the threshold notability of the parent subject matter and the items that sit under it, am I correct that it's then just a pragmatic debate about whether the list is sufficiently long, detailed or complex to justify separation from the article about the subject matter? That stands to reason to me. If so, I imagine the issue is then just a disagreement over whether listifying things is preferred in any particular case; whilst I don't really like lists with few sources at all, that doesn't mean it attracts deletion policy unless it is short, lacks depth, and/or could easily sit within the parent article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 01:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Vrxces See WP:NLIST/ WP:LISTN. And no, it's not precise. Maybe we need to have an RfC on estabilishing criteria for lists of characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Agree, there is an enduring issue with notability for articles and lists relating to fictional characters and more guidance is needed. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 02:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The closest thing we have is WP:NLIST which is as vague to when lists can be made into articles. However, I know that fictional character lists without a significant amount of secondary sources on development and reception of the characters, and excessive primary details, are only grudgingly accepted across WP. Masem ( t) 02:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep per my comment in last AfD which was just a month ago. I am also not impressed by the stealthy attempt to delete by redirecting that took place at Felicia (Darkstalkers), which I now restored. That article deserves a proper AfD. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    PS. I've added something discusing the cast as a group to the reception section, which, well, did not exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • BLAR-ing is supposed to be a viable alternative to AfD if we feel it's reasonable. That's not a "stealthy attempt to delete", that's the results of a very length WP:BEFORE and examination of the sources, it wasn't done in bad faith.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 02:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Then use AfD. That was not a good topic to BLAR. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    BLAR is specifically for uncontroversial topics, not just ones you think are reasonable. As WP:BLAR says, ""Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial [...] cases of blanking and redirecting." The majority of video game characters should be considered controversial to merge unless the page is WP:ALLPLOT. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Merge per nom. It's not about whether the list meets LISTN or not, it's about whether there needs to be a split in the first place. KFM has proven that this list reasonably fits within the Darkstalkers article without disrupting it, so I don't see a need for an unnecessary content fork here. Arguments above have been ignoring the core argument of this AfD, which is about whether or not this split is necessary. NLIST isn't being argued here, that can be established, it's whether or not we really need this article to be separated. Based off what I'm seeing, I don't think a split is necessary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 03:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Pokelego999: I am unsure if you are aware, but the article was pared down to a tiny fraction of its former size prior to being "merged", including removal of numerous WP:RS. It fits in its current, barely-there state, but not in its previous fleshed-out one. I don't think much has been "proven" here at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 12:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't see any cut characters. The only issue I see is that RS were removed, and if that is the case, simply add them back to the article. One or two articles per character (Which seems pretty unlikely) should not bloat the article to a significant extent. This seems like a matter that can be resolved by simple editing, and if the article does in fact achieve significant bloat by adding the sources to its current state, then that can be a separate split discussion. The size is manageable, and further discussion should have been done before a BLAR revert. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 16:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Zxcvbnm: This is what you really want to defend as "fleshed out"? Really? The one with Eventhubs, "FlyingOmelete", and leftover gameguide commentary from past merges?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 13:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Some sources really were unreliable, yes - there were a number of blatant blogs that failed WP:USERG outright. But you are cherry-picking the absolute worst sources that for sure should have been removed. You also deleted many usable sources, so it was, in the most charitable interpretation, a rushed, "baby out with the bathwater" situation. Why was a full article on Anakaris from VentureBeat written by a WIRED journalist deleted despite being SIGCOV? Such things completely torpedo your argument that all the cleanup you did was of poor sources, and that the characters cannot be expanded within the list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 14:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You did jump in on this during an ongoing effort to clean it up and rework the series article as a whole, a long term effort not unlike those you do. The list was merged less than a weak ago, and had an AfD disrupt things to boot. Stuff like VentureBeat wasn't worked back in *yet*, but it also doesn't say a lot and can be taken down to a sentence. For comparison, the List of generation I Pokémon is being worked on by cogsan, and many of those Pokemon undoubtedly have at least one SIGCOV article somewhere, but one also has to consider the list as a whole. That said it feels like some of this could be ironed out on my talk page instead of muddying this discussion further.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 14:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If it was a longterm effort at cleanup, gutting and/or blanking this article is the very wrong way to go about it. It should remain untouched, and a new draft created elsewhere until it is ready to replace the existing content. At that point you can start a merge discussion using the draft as evidence. It still doesn't mean deleting this article wholesale is merited at all regardless of how poor quality you think it is right now. Currently there is no replacement for it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 16:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep On one hand, I strongly agree with the nominator that the listification approach can be redundant and often produces poor-quality articles where the subject matter is better canvassed within the primary article. But in the context of this article, editors worked to improve the quality and merge non-notable characters to it, stripping the pretty wide (if highly flawed) sourcing in the purpose. Fighting games also strike me as having appropriate separated character articles because the characters tend to have significant attention as the narrative and gameplay anchor for the games. Although noting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS there is a commonplace practice of having character lists accompany the article: such as for Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, King of Fighters, which originally didn't look too dissimilar to how this used to be honestly. It feels like there's not a settled approach to the future of this that has been exposed by the deletion nomination, and because there is not a self-evident notability issue the direction should be to err on the side of caution. No expert on this stuff though - as stated above there's not a lot of guidance on where the best approach lies for character articles and fictional lists. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 22:52, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • @ ＶＲＸＣＥＳ Offering some food for thought, but I feel a big thing to consider with that comparison is that MK, Street Fighter and KoF also have had 10+ games each to build canon from for their characters. Darkstalkers, as a series has only had two: Night Warriors is a re-release of Darkstalkers with two characters and the bosses playable, while every game after is just a modified version of Vampire Savior, story and all. When distilled there really isn't much story per character, or traits.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 23:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • As someone who has done searches for Darkstalkers characters, there's very little sigcov on the cast. - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 02:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AFD2.0, we were just debating this article a month ago. I'm relisting the discussion as opinion is split between those editors advocating Keeping the article and those supporting a Merge. One editor states that the nominator is arguing for a Merge, is that accurate? No one is supporting an outright deletion, right?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Liz: The nominator is very clearly arguing for a merge, as they stated "does not need to be a separate entity. As you can see from the link above, it fits perfectly inside the series article", which is a merge rather than deletion argument. They acknowledge the notability of the cast but nevertheless believe it should be merged as after they cleaned up what they believed to be poor sources, the article became a hollow shell. In its current state, the article could be merged with nothing lost, however, many of the sources they removed are perfectly good, viable SIGCOV and their deletions resulted in a net loss of information. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 22:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

What sigcov was removed? - Cukie Gherkin ( talk) 00:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Zx I'm just going to be blunt, that's hogwash. The issue is WP:NOPAGE: the information in this article can fit neatly inside Darkstalkers#Plot (as it currently does), and the development and reception info is going to be the same for the series as for the list. There's no need for a separate list.-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 00:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Fine then, I know claims don't mean much without evidence, so here's proof of the significant sources that are not in this version. As mentioned above, an article on Anakaris was removed, and the significant coverage from Den of Geek is still AWOL for no apparent reason, despite also having a full character list of the original roster and a bit of analysis. The character list from Hardcore Gaming 101 was purged to the aether until I added it back myself. At the time of the AfD the character roster from GamesRadar+ wasn't there either. Some of the articles were truly trivial/unreliable coverage, but yeah - baby with the bathwater. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 10:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Not to ask a dumb question, but wouldn't Den of Geek's article make more sense in the series article given it's reception on, well, the series? As for Anakaris' it is it's entirely about the character's gameplay which would be hard to work in; I mean many characters on List of generation I Pokémon have similar articles, would you argue those should be worked into there as well?-- Kung Fu Man ( talk) 12:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I think it could be used for both articles, certainly. I am unsure why it would be disqualified from use in a character list however, as significant coverage is not required to be the focus of the source material. And "entirely about the character's gameplay"... it's perfectly reasonable to use an article about the gameplay as a source. I don't see anywhere in policy that bans such a thing, frankly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 18:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. while gameplay coverage from secondary sources should be incorporated into our video game coverage, we don't want to pull gameplay from primary sources like gameplay guides. —  Masem ( t) 19:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There's clearly some confusion here about what WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE actually means. It states that writers should "Avoid lists of gameplay concepts and items unless these are notable as discussed in secondary sources in their own right in gaming context". It's not a blanket prohibition of anything talking about gameplay, only specifies that guides should not pop up apropos of nothing, like just wanting to write a FAQ for the cool new game that just released. None of the sources I gave are primary; all are secondary. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - So, it seems the main argument here is that the article isn't "needed." But on the other hand, I don't see any convincing reasons on why the article shouldn't exist either. In its current state, you can argue that it fits fine in the series article, but I also see WP:POTENTIAL for some expansion. There are some articles discussing some of its characters, such as from Game Rant, The Gamer and GamesRadar. MoonJet ( talk) 10:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Most of these sources give at most a sentence of commentary on the characters as a collective, focusing more on giving short snippets towards the individual members. There's not enough in any of these articles to really buff up this one substantially, and I'd argue that your argument as a whole falls under WP: NOPAGE. If it doesn't need to exist and can be better covered at another article, than it should be. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 23:15, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Well, seeing as Felicia will soon almost surely be merged per AFD result, that will leave Morrigan as the only Darkstalkers character with their own article. Surely there could some discussion on some of the characters merged in there, even though it proved to be not quite enough for their article? Demitri also had has own article, until fairly recently, for example. Keep in mind that WP:LISTN notes that one way to establish notability for lists is to have sources that discuss the set as a group, not the only way. In any case, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I see a valid split here. You don't. MoonJet ( talk) 00:01, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
    If there's enough for a split, maybe, but most of the commentary is very fleeting for the bulk of the characters. There's probably a good chunk for recently merged characters like Felicia and Demitri, but most won't have that, and those chunks can likely be covered in the main Darkstalkers article. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 03:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep [44] [45] [46] [47] Rjjiii ( talk) 21:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Two articles have already been cited by Moonjet above and the other two suffer from similar reasons as above. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 03:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Kevin Foxx

Kevin Foxx (  | talk | history | 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 could not find any additional sources which shows he passes WP:GNG in a WP:BEFORE search. SportingFlyer T· C 21:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

IceChat

IceChat (  | talk | history | 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:NSOFT Mfixerer ( talk) 09:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Posted to the wrong daily log page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consider this a First Relist as the previous one was just to move the discussion to the correct daily log page. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. The sources proposed by Jonie148 have not been questioned by others. Sandstein 08:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Under the Radar Volume 2

Under the Radar Volume 2 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same as WP:Articles for deletion/Under the Radar Volume 3 - No evidence of notability, Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG – Davey2010 Talk 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pinging me. I don't have a huge amount of emotional investment or interest here (I was more interested in the topic five-ten years ago, when I worked on these pages), but I think there are a range of sources which can help establish notability. These look useful, for instance:

-- Jonie148 ( talk) 08:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Voting keep per Jonie148. I think there's enough coverage for a short but helpful album entry here. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. — Ganesha811 ( talk) 04:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Under the Radar Volume 1

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

Same as WP:Articles for deletion/Under the Radar Volume 3 - No evidence of notability, Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG – Davey2010 Talk 20:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pinging me. I don't have a huge amount of emotional investment or interest here (I was more interested in the topic five-ten years ago, when I worked on these pages), but I think there are a range of sources which can help establish notability. These look useful, for instance:

-- Jonie148 ( talk) 08:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Many thanks for finding these - I did like with any article do a WP:BEFORE search and only found the NME source so many thanks for finding these, I'll add them to the article, Thanks, Warm Regards, – Davey2010 Talk 00:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Voting keep per Jonie148. I think there are enough sources for a short but helpful album entry here. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. Editors wanting to pursue a Redirect/Merge option can open a discussion on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Sestre (drag act)

Sestre (drag act) (  | talk | history | 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. Only notable for one event, their Eurovision participation. 92.249.247.173 ( talk) 18:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)}} reply

  • Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator--above text is copied from the IP's user talk page. As for my own view, one would think that participation in Eurovision would render an act inherently notable, but at the very least the sourcing could use improvement. -- Finngall talk 20:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sexuality and gender, and Slovenia. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 22:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per criteria 10 and 12 of WP:MN. BabbaQ ( talk) 07:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • WP:ONEEVENT is a valid rationale. I suggest a redirect to the Slovenia in ESC 2002 page. - 92.249.247.156 ( talk) 07:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      • Just a suggestion, create a user account. As your IP adress is obviously changing. Anyways, - per criteria 10 and 12 of WP:MN applies here and is pointing to notability. BabbaQ ( talk) 08:29, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the amount of coverage they received back then clearly establishes notability. Adding criteria 11 from MN, their main song still appears on radio and TV shows sometimes. -- Tone 10:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Slovenia in the Eurovision Song Contest 2002; the article is largely unsourced, therefore is already falling down on WP:BLP, and given WP:1E their only notable achievement being representing Slovenia at Eurovision I believe a redirect to another article where their appearance within this one event is discussed in greater detail is more appropriate. Sims2aholic8 ( talk) 13:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or selectively merge as suggested. A redirect without keeping some of the information would be in error. Bearian ( talk) 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment: - the criterias 10 and 12 of WP:MN still applies for notability. So staying behind my Keep rationale. Also criteria 11 seem to apply indeed as pointed out by user Tone above. BabbaQ ( talk) 15:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: The sourcing as it stands should ideally be improved but I agree with the rationale above that points 10-12 from WP:MN apply. Editing84 ( talk) 16:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Rita Puspa Zakaria

AfDs for this article:
Rita Puspa Zakaria (  | talk | history | 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 individual in question serves as a government official in a third-level subdivision of Indonesia. The majority of references in her article pertain to her work within her region, lacking significant national coverage as required by WP:BASIC. Additionally, her designation as a lecturer potentially qualifies her as an academic, yet fails to meet the criteria outlined in WP:NACADEMIC. Ckfasdf ( talk) 20:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already part of a bundled nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariah binti Ahmad so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: This reads as an extended family biography, I don't see notability with the sources presented. I can't find any in Gsearch, but there might be more in the native language. Oaktree b ( talk) 22:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 22:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ebirah

Ebirah (  | talk | history | 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 minor Kaiju from Godzilla. I can't seem to find much on it, barring two book sources I stumbled on (One of which is already cited in the article.) While these are solid, there just isn't much more than that, and thus I don't see enough justifying a split here. I'd personally recommend a redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep, its debut film, given that seems to be its biggest role. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and Japan. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 20:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - Several other languages have a separate page for Ebirah, most notably Japaneses, which has a lengthy page with numerous citations. Moreover, a Google book search turns up numerous references to Eibrah in credible sources, including additional information that is not currently found in our article. Ebirah has also appeared in other comic books and media beyond what is listed in our article. Eibrah is having a bit of a moment of late, and if anything is only going to appear even more often going forward. I think rather than deleting this article should actually be updated and expanded -- Ash-Gaar ( talk) 22:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Just because an article has versions in alternate languages does not mean that it is inherently notable. A recent merge, Charmander, was in more than thirty languages and yet had a unanimous merge consensus. All bar the Japanese article as well are in similar if not worse states than ours. It has some decent dev info in the Japanese article that is certainly better than ours, but I don't think it's enough to justify the article either way given both a complete lack of Reception and the fact the development was not so incredibly well documented that it justifies a separate article on its own, though I am willing to debate that point. In any case, numerous appearances and numerous hits do not contribute to notability either. Most of the book hits I saw were just mentions of the Ebirah movie and associated plot recaps. There's very little in the way of actual commentary on Ebirah in most of those sources. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 ( talk) 03:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Re-direct to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep. As the article stands, its strictly in-universe content with no real world reference. It can show up a billion times on several google hits mean nothing as the character needs real world relevance outside of the Godzilla series. The characters appearance outside of the film seems to be limited to just showing up in video games, other films, comics etc. Without context, all this can be covered in a paragraph within the film article in a Legacy or influence section after. Andrzejbanas ( talk) 14:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep, the first film the kaiju appeared in, and the only one in which it had a significant role. Much like in the similar AFD for Manda, simply citing the number of references in the Japanese article is not sufficient when actually looking in-depth at those sources show them to be comprised of a number of official Toho publications, the same book being cited as different sources multiple times, and even a piece or two of fiction. Additionally, the sources are not really being used to support any claim of notability for the creature, but simply providing verification for the plot and production details for the movies that it appeared in. Searching for English sources turns up much of the same kind of sources - reviews, plot summaries, and production details for the films, but nothing showing that Ebirah could be considered notable on its own merits, and not simply covered as part of the articles for the handful of films it appeared in. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep, largely unsourced original research page. Even if it is notable, it would require a full rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 21:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Ebirah, Horror of the Deep per above. There are no in-depth coverage except usual reviews and plot summary listings. Bhivuti45 ( talk) 11:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 22:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The Movie Channel (British TV channel)

The Movie Channel (British TV channel) (  | talk | history | 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. I googled it, and found no reliable sources. Avishai11 ( talk) 20:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep Please read WP:BEFORE comprehensively before attempting another nomination; 'it's not on Google' is by far not a proper rationale for deletion, especially for a network that predated that website. It also has a plausible redirect target so this isn't getting deleted. Nate • ( chatter) 23:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This was originally a separate channel from Sky Movies/Sky Cinema so it needs to have its own article, separate from Sky Cinema. Also, a redirect is effectively a delete. And to remove any doubt about its notability on the grounds of not finding anything via Googling it, I have added a number of references to the article. Rillington ( talk) 06:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thank you, I definitely had a feeling sources were out there, and the 'redirection=deletion' line certainly fits; just letting the nom know that this isn't getting redlinked anytime soon. Nate • ( chatter) 12:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 22:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Richard Kell (footballer)

Richard Kell (footballer) (  | talk | history | 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:NSPORT. Geoff | Who, me? 20:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment To make this nom perfectly clear, I am conveying a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I apologize for not making that clearer when I initiated the discussion. Geoff | Who, me? 04:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Completely disagree with your assessment, did you bother doing a WP:BEFORE? First result, he became a pilot. [51], Shocking nomination, there are a number of those on a google search which easily passes WP:GNG, with some interviews. There are more sources for his footballing career. Govvy ( talk) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - judging by the PROD comment, this should be seen as a potential WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as Richard Kell himself has requested deletion. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Govvy; over 100 professional appearances with coverage out there, clearly notable. Giant Snowman 19:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Govvy, WP:BEFORE not thoroughly completed. Notable footballer. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 23:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The request for removing this BLP came from an IP and it hasn't been verified. Also the IP showed irregular editing closer to vandalism, removing some cites that could be restored etc. So can it be even trusted? So the nominator requesting a change of nomination? Have you even been in contact with Richard Kell? I don't see any evidence of that. Govvy ( talk) 08:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    See VRTS ticket #  2024032510011024. You can ask a VRTS member for confirmation at the VRT noticeboard. Geoff | Who, me? 12:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Per above. Svartner ( talk) 11:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Clearly has a career worthy of notability. I agree with Govvy in full. This is very obvious. Anwegmann ( talk) 16:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - obviously will be kept, with 100+ Football League appearances, but with the BLPREQUESTDELETE, I've deleted the birthdate - which doesn't seem necessary to me. Nfitz ( talk) 19:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - per WP:ATHLETE. Bhivuti45 ( talk) 11:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 22:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Héctor Larrea

Héctor Larrea (  | talk | history | 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. Avishai11 ( talk) 20:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Rhonard García

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

The subject made a single appearance for the Dominican Republic national football team a decade ago. I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG; all I found were passing mentions in both English- and Spanish-language media. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Derick Sequeira

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

The subject made a single appearance for the Nicaragua national football team a decade ago. I am unable to find enough coverage to meet WP:GNG; all I found were passing mentions in both English- and Spanish-language media. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Canada, and Nicaragua. JTtheOG ( talk) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie ( talk) 23:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete played only for semi-pro and/or amateur/academy teams. One international appearances doesn't supersede WP:SPORTBASIC. Anwegmann ( talk) 16:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Question to Anwegmann. Are thee appearances sufficient? I'm not an expert, but playing one game (with no goals) is not sufficient to pass WP:FOOTY (see De minimis non curat lex), but three might be. Bearian ( talk) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Hey Bearian. There is some precedent here (and further discussed here) pointing to 20 international appearances as enough to supersede a lack of WP:SIGCOV and/or WP:SPORTBASIC. I'm all for using international appearances as a measure of notability, as I feel as though football articles suffer terribly from WP:BIAS. I've made that point clear several times, but Sequeira doesn't really reach any of thresholds I'm aware of, unfortunately. Anwegmann ( talk) 19:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Three - probably not. But three appearances at the U-17 world cup, winning a bronze medal, with some media coverage is another question. Nfitz ( talk) 19:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's a good point. Which is to say that I am more than happy to change my vote if we can arrive at some kind of consensus on this. Anwegmann ( talk) 19:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails SPORTBASIC. Bhivuti45 ( talk) 11:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above discussion. Thank you for answering my questions. Bearian ( talk) 15:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. I note that merely assuming that offline sources exist is not enough; to make a topic verifiable they must be cited ( WP:V). A renomination is therefore possible. Sandstein 08:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Workers Party of Barbados

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

Party contested one election and received 40 (!) votes, or 0.03%. Needless to say, it does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Barbados. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete A random dude, obviously not a notable party. Reywas92 Talk 15:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Non-notable. Shadow311 ( talk) 15:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - article expanded now. Going through what is available online, we can deduce that there was plenty of coverage of the party as of the mid-1980s, and that the fore-runner of WPB (MONALI), which from my reading could be considered one and the same organization, had gained national notoriety during the protests of 1983 Grenada invasion. We can also surely assumed that there would be coverage in Cuban, Soviet, Korean and Nicaraguan news outlets, not available online. -- Soman ( talk) 20:30, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • How would North Korean media be WP:RS during an active conflict situation? Geschichte ( talk) 09:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - concur with Soman; the forerunner is referenced in the CIA's 1983 World Fact Book (p.17) more than reasonable to assume furhter offline sourcing available. Regards, -- Goldsztajn ( talk) 23:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    A "mention" is not significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. AusLondonder ( talk) 11:49, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Shouldn't the article be about MONALI, then, with an appendix in that article about the WPB? Geschichte ( talk) 09:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I'm seeing lots of mentions of the party in a range of different publications, from regional reports to a mention about the boycott of the games, in spite of the low turnout on election day. Think the sourcing is there to keep this one even though they didn't make much of an impact, though reasonable arguments for merging somewhere else might exist. SportingFlyer T· C 23:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Belle Rock Entertainment

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

Kept at previous AfD based in part due to conduct of nom, this company does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Zero secondary sources. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

DELETE - Article has no proper references. Google yielded no additional news. Z3r0h3r000 ( talk) 07:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominated previously at AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet GNG/ WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing ++ 14:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The "delete" opinions are both more numerous and more convincing. The "keep" opinions make the point that the topic is interesting, but that is not a criterium für inclusion in Wikipedia. Rather, we care about notability, as reflected in substantial coverage (more than passing mentions) in reliable sources, and the "keep" side fails to cite such coverage. Sandstein 08:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The Pizza Meter

The Pizza Meter (  | talk | history | 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 attempts to show that this is a real, coherent concept, when in fact it's just a single Domino's pizza store owner's post hoc observations synthesized into something supposedly substantial. Citation 2 (available here from 1991) is his very brief (unverified) claim of delivering more pizzas to the White House, CIA, and Pentagon, including ahead of the invasion. Then at cite 1 ( here from 1991) the same Domino's owner briefly makes the same claim that late-night deliveries to government offices increased. That's it! Cite 3 is from the unreliable "rec.humor.funny" about the same claim from the same year, cite 4 very briefly mentions the same 1991 reports, and cite 5 is a brief, unreliable anecdote from someone who heard the same factoid on the radio. This is one person's anecdata that got some very brief attention, not a verified or meaningful phenomenon as the article puffs it up to be, and not something notable deserving of a standalone article. People order delivery when they work late, so what? Reywas92 Talk 19:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Military, Politics, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Might have been a wikipedia article in the 1990s... I don't see coverage of this since that time frame. I'd expect it to continue into the multiple invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oaktree b ( talk) 20:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Keep: If this might've been a Wikipedia article in the 1990s, it should be a Wikipedia article now. Information doesn't have an expiry date. This cultural phenomenon, though fairly minor and short-lived, is still worth documenting. The Slate article from 2016 linked below and the YouTube video that brought me to this article show that the topic is of some contemporary interest too. — turdas talk - contribs 13:37, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      The Slate article is just a single paragraph that again only references the one-off 1991 comment as "online anecdotes". None of the rest of the article is about this. Reywas92 Talk 13:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: per OP. Seems to be one (non-notable) claim by the local Dominos which just got repeated by a few outlets. — Czello ( music) 21:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Does it really need to stand up to robust analysis in order to be notable enough for an article? e.g. Waffle House Index, Big Mac Index, etc. Whether a concept is epistemologically sound is not related to its notability. Or, put another way, we have articles for things like Divination and Fortune Telling. We don't delete them just because those things have no supporting evidence for their efficacy. Fredo699 ( talk) 22:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Notability and verifiability are separate criteria. The nominator isn't basing their deletion rationale on the lack of robust evidence but rather the fact that it's an insignificant "concept" based solely on unverified observations from a single Domino's pizza store owner. Mooonswimmer 00:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Apparently there was a short-lived annual report put out by Dominos in the mid-90s called the "Pizza Meter," based on interviews of 500 deliverers and store managers nationwide (see here, here). Potential redirect to Domino's Pizza? Mooonswimmer 00:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep: I actually saw a video on youtube that referenced the 'pizza index' and came here to get more information. Seems like the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide that exact service. Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRohz9VO1YY Tkircher ( talk) 22:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It's stupid, incorrect videos like this why the article should deleted. It's insane that people are making shit up like "It turns out there's a method to find out [the exact date of an operation]...discovered by Frank Meeks. He knows that Operation Desert Storm is going to commence tomorrow on January 17 due to the spike in late night pizza orders from government offices." Except that's total bullshit, Meeks didn't know anything, he claimed this connection to ordering his pizza retroactively. The original 1991 quote in the Tribune observed there was an increase in deliveries "since the war broke out", not that he predicted it beforehand! Then this amateur youtuber says "This correlation was coined 'The Pizza Index' which also successfully predicted military action ahead of time in many other cases." Wrong! There were no predictions (how could you predict anything beyond a vague 'they must be busy with something'), Meeks only made these claims about the Gulf War after the fact! I am very disappointed how the article presents this as an actual predictive phenomenon rather than a single company owner's anecdotal cherry-picked data and even more disappointed that Depths of Wikipedia posted it, resulting in other people like this running with it as more legitimate than it actually is. Unfortunately it doesn't really work to have an article just to debunk or clarify an urban legend; I'm surprised how poor the article Operations security is, but this deserves no more than a single sentence like "In 1991, an owner of pizza franchises observed that pizza delivery orders to the Pentagon and White House increased at night during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait; such relationships can be used in traffic analysis", cited to [52]. Reywas92 Talk 15:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Isn't dismissing "stupid, incorrect" claims like this part of the reason Wikipedia exists? Rewrite the article to tell the true story of how this was mostly a singular event or an urban legend of sorts in the 90s. It's relevant enough to have been covered in the Washington Post too (I found this article with a total of 15 seconds of googling), so I don't think the /relevancy/ of this is in question. The article's presentation of it could be misleading, but clearly this was an actual "thing" in the 90s. — turdas talk - contribs 15:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I'd rather not have a stand-alone article on something that has little substance or sourcing beyond a few sentences at a time. With the WaPo article, are you suggesting expanding it into something saying that even government staffers get delivery when they have to work late? Why would that be an encyclopedia article? That has just a brief mention of Domino's having a Pentagon delivery record set during the Gulf War, nothing predictive, nothing substantive – we don't need an article to say a couple hundred people (1-2% of the Pentagon's workforce) had pizza delivered and someone realized later why they were working late. Maybe there should be a bullet in List_of_common_misconceptions#United_States! Reywas92 Talk 15:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Saying that it's just about government staffers getting delivery when working late is a reductivist argument. If it really was as uninteresting and mundane of a fact as you claim, then it would never have made news in the first place. Also, this wasn't just a retrospective, it actually was predictive in at least one instance: this Chicago Tribune is dated January 16 1991 and mentions the Dominos guy's prediction from "Tuesday" (January 15, presumably), and the Gulf War's main air campaign began on January 17. — turdas talk - contribs 16:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Something being interesting enough for a newspaper article does not mean it needs a stand-alone article. They're decent fun facts as a sort of Human-interest story but not everything above the mundane is to be included here this way. But seriously, was this pizza index predictive, or did everyone know military action was imminent? January 15 was the UN-imposed deadline for Iraq to withdraw before force was authorized. Just a couple days earlier Congress passed a resolution approving use of force! Troops knew we were on the verge of war! The Pentagon was working late every night that week, but maybe the night before they had ordered from Pizza Hut instead of from the guy who was happy to talk to the media! I admit my comment above was incorrectly dismissive of the timeline, but just because you can draw a connection between things doesn't mean it has encyclopedic significance or should have its own article. Reywas92 Talk 18:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete When you have to link to a comments section as one of your limited number of references, I think you can pretty safely say WP:GNG isn't met. SportingFlyer T· C 11:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ethernet Exchange

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

Outdated, was future-looking when initially written, into a market that failed to materialize. Not a thing in 2024. No inline references, general references are decade+ old marketing materials. WP:PROD nomination of article was contested by Kvng on the basis of WP:NOTTEMPORARY, but the article was never notable to begin with (fails WP:SIGCOV, "press releases [...] are not considered independent", WP:SPIP "press releases [...] are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article", WP:SBST "routine news coverage such as press releases [...] is not significant coverage", WP:PRSOURCE "A press release is clearly not an independent source"), so bringing it here for a full AfD. DefaultFree ( talk) 18:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ryan Warren

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Articls is just basic resume information.

Of the 4 sources: Two just list him as one of hundreds nominated or finalists for two awards. The third ref does not even mention him. The fourth was two short paragraphs as recipient of the Clinton Grybas Emerging Talent Award. North8000 ( talk) 18:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Montana#District 2. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 22:10, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Steve Held

Steve Held (  | talk | history | 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 congressional candidate. Of the 4 sources cited on the page, 1 is Ballotpedia, 1 is IMDb, 1 is a NYT article about his daughter that doesn't even mention him, and the other is a press release he sent out. Doesn't seem to have gotten significant news coverage and I don't see any reason to think he's notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 17:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As this person is a current congressional candidate, this page is all the more important as a source of public information. Lnbknrd1 ( talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" -- WP:NPOL. Wikipedia is not a search engine, it's an encyclopedia of articles about notable people, events, and concepts. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 17:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
For the record, I would also support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Montana#District 2. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 01:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure SAG board membership confers notability. Looking at the current national board, there are plenty of members who have Wikipedia pages, but there are also plenty who don't, including Samantha MacIvor, Eric Wydra, Avis Boone, Diana Boylston, Rik Deskin, Shaan Sharma, and Ilyssa Fradin. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 17:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
He also only had some minor roles, and this article was clearly created in support of his candidacy. If there are sources demonstrating he's a notable actor, I'm willing to review them on those grounds, but I'm not optimistic. SportingFlyer T· C 21:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Are there independent third party mentions about their membership? Cannot find one so why should it matter. But agree with possible recreation after election. Killarnee ( talk) 21:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

List of unusual injuries or survived experiences

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

Subjective list with unclear and potentially indiscriminate inclusion criteria.
Firstly, it's not clearly defined what constitutes "unusual" in this context. For example, there's an entry here for a person who survived a leopard attack by fighting off the leopard, which falls rather short of being unique or unprecedented — and while the person in question does have a Wikipedia article, "survived a leopard attack" isn't the reason why he has a Wikipedia article: he has a Wikipedia article because of his work as a biologist and conservationist and taxidermist, while surviving a leopard attack is just one sentence of trivia within it rather than his core notability claim, and is not important enough in the context of his overall biography to warrant being immortalized in a list of "unusual" incidents.
There are also many people listed here who don't have Wikipedia articles at all, many of whom would never get a Wikipedia article on the basis of what's described here in and of itself, as well as several people who are included without any description whatsoever of what even happened, and many who are listed without sourcing.
And without a clear and objective definition of what constitutes "unusual", this could potentially attract an infinite number of unencylopedic entries for anybody who ever gets a hit or two of human-interest coverage in the context of surviving almost any potentially dangerous incident whatsoever — for example, bridges don't collapse every day, so technically the two survivors of the Baltimore bridge collapse just the other day survived an experience "unusual" enough to merit listing here too — which just renders it effectively open-ended and unmaintainable.
This just isn't the kind of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia. Bearcat ( talk) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bearcat ( talk) 17:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - indiscriminate information with ideosyncratic inclusion criteria. WP:NOTEVERYTHING JMWt ( talk) 18:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete with regret as I love this sort of random trivia but we’re building an encyclopedia not recreating Ripley’s Believe It Or Not! Mccapra ( talk) 21:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This list could become a category at most. What bothers me most is that many of the people listed don't have their own article or are in the list because of another reason, which makes it a nice to read list with unlimited and undefined scope. Killarnee ( talk) 16:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TNT. I'm going to go along, but for a novel reason: it's a huge mess. I'm not against such a list with proper reasons and rubrics for inclusion, but the entries (other than the first, Phineas Gage), appear to be quite random. The notes are extraordinarily long. Beyond ordinary amounts of editing would have to take place to fix the many problems in this article. Sorry. Bearian ( talk) 17:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Would make a great listicle somewhere in the web though. -- Lenticel ( talk) 01:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure)‎ Allan Nonymous ( talk) 04:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Godtube

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

Has been six years since WP:GNG was raised. Allan Nonymous ( talk) 16:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Allan Nonymous what was the result of your WP:BEFORE searches? If they weren't done, I invite you to withdraw the nomination. Oblivy ( talk) 04:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus after a month of discussions and relistings. Merges, if required, can be discussed in the talk page, outside AfD. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 22:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

TruckersFM

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

Insufficient notability, perhaps merge into a Truck Simulator community section? Apart from unreliable Metro, sources appear to be about a community around the game as a whole. IgelRM ( talk) 12:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Video games. IgelRM ( talk) 12:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Got SIGCOV from 2 sources, here and here. While Metro is considered a tabloid newspaper, there's nothing to suggest the article from them is factually skewed or influenced by bias. This seems like an edge case where Metro would still make sense as proof of notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 07:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I see the argument that Metro ( WP:METRO) is in this case not much worse than the other sources. But it feels off that we write about this and not say, the TruckersMP modification. Could the modification pass notability, maybe that could be a merge target then? IgelRM ( talk) 10:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    With regards to TruckersMP, it does not seem to have gotten any coverage in RS whatsoever, while this did. So, it's simple why this should have an article while the mod should not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 10:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The modification probably got more coverage, see PCGamer, GameStar, Shacknews. IgelRM ( talk) 02:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not really. All 3 of those seem like basic announcements rather than SIGCOV like the radio station got. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 20:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Fair enough, but I would not count those Truck Simulator feature articles as SIGCOV for the radio station alone. Found more from Eurogamer, PCGamer and note that multiplayer is now an official feature. IgelRM ( talk) 10:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Those are definitely more substantial. Still, that seems to be the sole SIGCOV that exists on the Internet. It falls just short of passing GNG. If you can find something else, it would probably merit an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ ( ᴛ) 19:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the series article Truck Simulator. Zx's Eurogamer and PCN sources are good enough to write a small subsection, but not really enough to support a full article. I think it's best covered as part of this parent article. Sergecross73 msg me 19:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 15:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus after a month of discussions and relistings. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 22:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Shock (troupe)

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP who made a request at WT:AFD which says: This article needs to be nominated for deletion. It cites no sources (despite being tagged for a decade now), and the subject doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Shock were a short-lived British dance troupe from the early 80s, but were never famous in their own right. They were known only by association. They released two singles, neither of which charted. Their former members are not prominent or widely known beyond this troupe. CycloneYoris talk! 08:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Music. CycloneYoris talk! 08:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Skynxnex ( talk) 15:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The basics of this can be summarized in a few sentences and sourced to The Guardian, "... the burlesque pop band Shock. They supported Gary Numan at Wembley, performed at the Hacienda and did an eight-night stint at the Ritz in New York, where Grace Jones, Shields and Yarnell and Billy Idol came to see them play." Several possible articles exist to merge the basics of this into, the best being probably founding member Tim Dry, but there are also related articles on members Barbie Wilde and Carole Caplin, along with Tik and Tok, a later project. Elspea756 ( talk) 20:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep: And redirect to Tik and Tok, their later project, which already has the basics of this, and some additional references about their later career. Elspea756 ( talk) 23:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 15:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was This is the only consensus I can discern from this discussion as few editors commented on the other articles. No penalty for future AFDs on this other articles.‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same issues below:

List of 2010 Commonwealth Games broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of EFL Cup broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Eredivisie broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of EuroLeague broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ligue 1 broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

WP:NOTGUIDE applies here. The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Also, all of the sources are announcments and does not assert notability. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: There was no way in which this article was going to survive. I have copied and pasted its content into the main article which means there is now no need for this to be retained. I am only commenting on, and advocating for deletion of, the FIFA CWC broadcast list. Rillington ( talk) 20:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect only the Club World Cup broadcasting article to FIFA Club World Cup#List of current broadcasters per nom. Lacks standalone notability. Procedurally keep all others so they can be renominated separately if desired and their individual merits can be better examined. This list includes domestic football leagues, domestic and international football cups, and multiple non-football competitions which could have widely varying levels of notability. Frank Anchor 23:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Procedurally keep all others Agreed. Each of the others need to be separate AfD debates, should anyone propose their deletion from Wikipedia. Rillington ( talk) 05:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
      I tried that before but then I had one user who suggested that they could be bundled together. I nominated them all as they had the same issues. SpacedFarmer ( talk) 09:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete There is no need of an article for something which can be covered in just 1 paragraph. Azuredivay ( talk) 10:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters as per last AFD, and then procedural keep the rest due to inappropriate bundling. Giant Snowman 19:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep the other 5 articles and renominate separately. Some of these articles refer to leagues and others to a specific instance of a competition. One of these is about basketball. Each might have separate merits. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this article and then procedural keep the rest per GiantSnowman's suggestion. Anwegmann ( talk) 19:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters, procedural keep on rest as per others, the bundling of these together doesn't work well, since they're a range of different sports. List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters already has a clear mandate to be deleted, as it hasn't demonstrated any more notability than last time round. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect the FIFA one to each tournament, and keep the others, for the poor bundling. Nfitz ( talk) 18:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt List of FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters, procedural keep on the rest. Per the last AfD, the FIFA article is a violation of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Let'srun ( talk) 20:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and do not salt the FIFA Club World Cup broadcasters article only. No opinion on the others which can be renominated individually. Carson Wentz ( talk) 04:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Per above. Also, many of these articles use an OR spatial division, where countries in Western Asia are a fake continent with Egypt or are part of Europe. gidonb ( talk) 23:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 11:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Brigitte García

Brigitte García (  | talk | history | 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:1E/ WP:NOTMEMORIAL, only known because of her murder. As such, this biographical article should not exist, because she wasn't notable enough as a mayor of a small town. Clear WP:GNG fail with attempt at claiming notability based on post-death sources that are all about her death rather than significant coverage about her as a whole. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I am against, I sure the youngest mayor in Ecuador is notable, though it would be difficult for me to go through spainish media to retrieve it. Here is at least one article before here death.
There are also articles about murder victims on Wikipedia, so not being super notable alive isn't necessarily a cause for deletion.
https://www.pressreader.com/ecuador/el-diario-ecuador/20230215/281801403134246 A reasonable voice ( talk) 16:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep. To make my above opinion absolutely clear, I am against deleting the article not retaining the article. A reasonable voice ( talk) 09:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Pretty sure those articles about murder victims dive into the murder itself, not the person.
Also, those articles are just notable because of the murder and/or a celebrity who got murdered or did the murder. This is neither of those things as the page only exists because she died. Also, the "youngest mayor in Ecuador" part is trivia, and not actually something that means much. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep. The youngest mayor in Ecuador is notable. There is significant coverage.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-68655323
The One Event rule is not applicable, because there are at least two notable events in in her life — election as mayor and death.
Notmemorial is for persons trying to write about their deceased relatives, not about people who are written about in BBC, Spiegel, Sky news, Reuters, Fox News.
We do not require sources to be published before death. BilboBeggins ( talk) 16:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If her election as mayor was notable, then provide some sources for it.
I think you'd have a hard time doing that as she was a mayor of a small town (her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is just trivia). 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep This is comparable to a Mayor being assassinated in America in a city of 200,000. This is part of a wider spread of assassinations that should be covered on Wikipedia.
The assassination wasn't even the most notable part about her. She was the youngest mayor in Ecuador, a country of 9,000,000 people. Lukt64 ( talk) 17:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
And?
So what if she was the youngest mayor in Ecuador? Are there any reliable sources of her before her death? Her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is just trivia. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
"This is comparable to a Mayor being assassinated in America in a city of 200,000." - No it's not. The significance and size of towns isn't measured proportional to the size of their parent country, or we'd report every time someone stubbed their toe in the Vatican. I'm definitely ready to be persuaded that Ms Garcia was notable, and I hope to see some sources for that. But the size of her town relative to the country is completely irrelevant. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 10:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Lukt64 and BilboBeggins youngest mayor of Ecuador is notable. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 19:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Crime. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Coverage (worldwide) with “reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention” like here and here. Note it’s not only coverage after her death but also from 2023. 82.174.61.58 ( talk) 19:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Not entirely sure what to do here. We've never held that someone is notable simply because they were a young mayor before - it's nowhere in NPOL and those arguments aren't valid in this discussion. For a small town mayor to be notable, they have to be notable above and beyond just being a mayor. WP:CRIME applies here instead, not WP:NPOL, which I don't usually apply at AfD - that reads The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. I don't think we're quite there yet, but the amount of coverage that was received here means we could get there if this continues to be well-documented. SportingFlyer T· C 23:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed. If she was so notable from that, then there should be good sourcing for that, but nobody voting keep here has actually provided any sources that are significant coverage from prior to her death about this aledged remarkable achievement. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - enough coverage to pass WP:GNG & WP:POLITICIAN. As multiple other !voters have commentated on, Garcia was well-known in Ecuador prior to her assassination due to her youth and political agenda. Inter&anthro ( talk) 02:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • If she was well known, could you provide significant coverage sources that demonstrate this? WP:NPOLITICIAN is only met if she holds Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage but I see no sources prior to her death to show that she was a notable politician as claimed. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The one article I've seen from when she was mayor outside of the WP:NOTNEWS cycle was a local paper's interview with her, which doesn't count. Is there more? SportingFlyer T· C 09:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom or move per @ LaborHorizontal. No one has yet provided significant coverage of García before her death. Her being the youngest mayor of Ecuador is still purely trivia and should not be treated as an actual encyclopedic fact. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Comment There's a 2023 Ecuavisa article about García. toweli ( talk) 13:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Ideally keep, otherwise move to something like "Assassination of Brigitte García". I understand concerns about most sources being about her assassination rather than other parts of her career. Two things about that: (1) That itself is notable in my opinion, and justifies at least an article about the assassination if not the person herself, and (2) the sources note that she was notable in being the youngest mayor in Ecuador and a leftist challenger. Additional articles about her prior to her assassination:
The Primicias article only has passing mentions of García. Same for the El Diario article (not from Pressreader). The Ecuavisa and El Diario (on Pressreader) articles base her notability solely on the fact that she's the youngest mayor in Ecuador. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Even if sources note that she was notable for being the youngest mayor in Ecuador, that is still trivia. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep quite clearly passes the WP:GNG threshold and sure could be majorly expanded. Abcmaxx ( talk) 21:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I disagree that Garcia is 1E because her age and assassination would seem to both be of some note, but the former is trivia (do we have an article for the youngest mayor in every country), and the latter could probably use some expansion. Either way, we really could use more information on her actual career. If we agree to keep but expansion does not occur, this article SHOULD be reverted to a draft. DarkSide830 ( talk) 23:17, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep, notable mayor. I don't see a reason to delete this article, considering that there's an ongoing political crisis. Microplastic Consumer ( talk) 03:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
What arguments do you have to show she is notable and that you "don't see a reason to delete this article"? 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep, It may not be notable for a mayor that no one knew besides the occupants of her city, but according to most sources linked here, she was notable for being a young 27 year old being a mayor in Ecuador where the politicians are usually born in the 1950's and 60's and in some cases 1940's, it isn't surprising that most news articles focus on her. But her murder definitely gave a lot of spotlight since some people may have liked her and was in shock to hear that she was killed likely to an organization or a lone wolf. 70.167.194.163 ( talk) 17:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador is purely trivia, not actually encyclopedic. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 10:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Move to "Murder of Brigitte García" I agree with others who have pointed out that she is mostly notable for the manner of her death (murdered mayor). She would never have otherwise had a wikipedia article solely for being the youngest mayor in Ecuador. However, the media coverage of the murder itself is clearly significant in the context of the country's political crisis - enough so to merit an article (for examples of other articles about a notable murder itself and not about the murder victim, see Murder of Travis Alexander or Murder of Anita Cobby). Because the murder is far more notable than the murder victim, the existing content should be moved to an article focused on the killing itself. Flip and Flopped ツ 01:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • If consensus is keep, then keep with this move is my strongly preferred option rather than keeping as a biography article. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The consensus is to keep without moving. BilboBeggins ( talk) 16:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I have no problem with this result. SportingFlyer T· C 09:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
That's definitely an option as well. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Can we close this? The overwhelming consensus is to keep the article, only 2 editors seem to oppose this move while another supports a move Microplastic Consumer ( talk) 14:07, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There isn't clear consensus and there's WP:NODEADLINE on Wikipedia, so no need to speedy close this. There's multiple options including moving to "Murder of Brigitte García" on the table, which need to be properly discussed. 3 more days of discussion to achieve a better consensus is sensible right now. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 14:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Keep the article! the suggestion to move to "Murder of Brigitte Garcia" is also reasonable. This impressive young woman should be remembered. 2A02:C7C:BDD7:5000:E046:37F:FE7E:DD66 ( talk) 19:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC) — 2A02:C7C:BDD7:5000:E046:37F:FE7E:DD66e has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
No. See @ Joseph2302's response. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There is an ITN nomination that has been closed because of this AfD and won't be re-opened until this AfD is closed. Abcmaxx ( talk) 09:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
So what? The nom is already gone. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Move, per LaborHorizontal and SportingFlyer. There is clearly significant coverage of her murder, while it's debatable whether she had any such coverage before her death. I see no reason for deletion, but the scope of the article should probably be changed towards covering her death, per other articles about similar killings. -- Grnrchst ( talk) 11:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    keep, a young female mayor, that's remarkable on its own. Bdschi ( talk) 13:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    That's purely trivia. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 16:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep any mayor killed during an internal conflict is notorious. If she had another nationality there would not be so many doubts...Passes WP:GNG. _-_Alsor ( talk) 18:05, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Still WP:1E though. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - perhaps the worst nomination I've seen in a long time. Major in-depth international coverage. Can you please remove this User talk:Joseph2302. Nfitz ( talk) 18:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • A discussion is most certainly not needed. I'd be less surprised to see her nominated at WP:ITN/C than I would at AFD. It's quite clear that consensus exists here - it's no longer necessary to be campaigning. Also pointing out that a nomination is very poor, is by no definition a personal attack! It's clearly a poor nomination, given the very clear consensus, and high participation. Nfitz ( talk) 19:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Disagreeing is fine, calling this AFD the worst nomination I've seen in a long time is not civil, and overly aggressive towards me. Given multiple editors have not voted keep, this is not a ridiculous nomination like you claim. Moving to a "Murder of" article is more sensible than a biography article too, and that warrants discussion. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 22:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It's absolutely civil, and not personal - it's encouragement to withdraw the nomination. Moving the article - which isn't something I've suggested - would be at ATD, and then BEFORE comes into question; but is suggesting BEFORE personal - because surely if what I said is personal - so is that. Nfitz ( talk) 23:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Greatest reasoning to keep: "should not be deleted at all". 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 06:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Current Tally:
15 Keep
3 Delete
2 Move
I feel this is sufficient to keep the article, a wide majority of editors are in favor of keeping this article Microplastic Consumer ( talk) 20:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I'm pretty sure consensus doesn't just work by counting up the number of votes, but also by the quality of the arguments ( WP:DCON). A large number of Keep voters don't seem to have an actual argument (besides her being the youngest mayor in Ecuador, which is trivia) for keeping that challenges the nominator's concerns. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 08:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It isn't just counting the voters - but over 5:1 without some kind of off-wiki campaign or something, is hard to dispute. But hang on - the primary argument appears to be significant coverage, not youngest mayor - the youngest mayor argument appears secondary in response to the ONEEVENT claims. Nfitz ( talk) 15:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
WP:1E was the original argument.
Also, even if the argument is SIGCOV, then it's SIGCOV before her death, as it's already obvious that there is SIGCOV at her death. But if SIGCOV cannot be found before her death then I support moving this article to Murder of Brigitte García. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 19:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
No. An admin will make the closure. The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 06:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
OK. 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 07:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: not sure why it was even nominated. there is a significance coverage for reliable and independent sources, and I am talking about English sources without mentioning the plethora of non-English sources. whether you want to discuss a move or not, that should be done separately. But as far as Wikipedia notability, she is notable and deserve to be included. Can someone include her picture in the infobox, as she is dead it can be used under fair use.
FuzzyMagma ( talk) 09:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
What arguments do you have to consider her notable? 🔥 Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Jalapeño, you've responded to practically every individual !vote here, some of them several times. This is excessive and approaching WP:BLUDGEON. It's not actually required that sources demonstrating someone's notability be published before their death, or we'd have a great deal of trouble with a lot of historical figures. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 09:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Gene Grimaldi

Gene Grimaldi (  | talk | history | 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 person is clearly a very prolific mastering engineer, but notability is not inherited. I don't think its unreasonable to state that "winning" awards by preforming audio work on albums released by other people doesn't count towards WP:MUSICBIO, unless the awards are specifically for audio technicians. This Pro Sound News piece is the only good profile of this guy I could find, and it alone isn't enough to show notability. Mach61 15:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

George E. Walker

AfDs for this article:
George E. Walker (  | talk | history | 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 independently notable per WP:BIO. Only thing is that he was related to the Bush's which does not qualify. Grahaml35 ( talk) 13:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete there is some material in the sources (but not used here) which may be of use in a Bush article , but this isn't it. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   13:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and New Jersey. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. He appears, by the very few accounts cited in the stub, to have been an ordinary farmer who contributed a tiny fraction of his DNA to two future presidents. That's not sufficient for inclusion. I am for inclusion of notable ancestors, and all parents, of United States Presidents, but this is a different story. I would not oppose a redirect or selective merge to the Bush family. Bearian ( talk) 17:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, as per WP:BIO. This guy, by himself, is not notable. He is worth a line or two, maybe a paragraph, in the Bush family article, and that's about it. Ted52 ( talk) 01:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 14:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Dave Wright (writer)

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

Autobiography of a poet with no viable claims of notability other than having had poems published. (Note, his one book of poetry, Riverwalkers, was published by the company he founded.) The one link to a review of one his works is a permanently dead link to a Blogspot page. Google searches turn up nothing. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 11:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ WikiDan61
https://books.google.com/books/about/Riverwalkers.html?id=F02HoAEACAAJ Google Books
Emmy Nomination: The Orphan Mother - Emmy-Nominated Book Promo on Vimeo https://vimeo.com/261493975
Pulse of the Alt-Net: A Conversation with Steve Roggenbuck - The Murfreesboro Pulse
How do I site self-published sales figures that don't qualify for any of the best selling lists but which are so high for a poetry collection that it made my book Riverwalkers probably in the top 5 Best Selling self-published Poetry Books of the 21st Century so far? Over 15,000 copies sold since 2013. I have the sales ledgers from Ingram, WalMart, Barnes & Noble, and Target Online to Prove it. In an open-market capitalist society, sales are the definition of noteworthy. Sorry I didn't buy off the free press like all the Major Publishers do for their "noteworthy" writers. Sorry I don't have "news" stories to cite in Wikipedia.
This article has been active for 9 years with all the same cited information as it has today. That a qualitative an true narrative has bee added about the writers life today hasn't changed the nature of the references that have been active since June 2015. Can you help me understand how this could have gone overlooked for almost 9 years? Geraldine85 ( talk) 14:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If Yall Dont Remove this Article, yall will be complicit in the spreading of real news. Geraldine85 ( talk) 14:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Geraldine85: Your comments raise a few issue:
  1. A link to the vimeo page for a book trailer, claiming that it was "Emmy-nominated" is not sufficient to verify that this film was actually ever nominated for an Emmy. (A link to the actual Emmy's website, listing the nomination, would be better. Note that a Google search for "Orphan Mother" +Emmy comes up empty.)
  2. Even if we can verify that this film was nominated for an Emmy, there is no indication of what Wright's role was in this film, other than "appearing" in it. The article does not claim that Wright was the one who was nominated for the Emmy.
  3. You don't self-cite sales figures. Unless they have been published in a reliable source, they are not useful at Wikipedia. Also, selling a lot of books is not part of the criteria for notable authors at Wikipedia. Significant, independent coverage in reliable sources is.
  4. You write your arguments in the first person. Are you, Geraldine, actually David Wright? This would constitute a significant conflict of interest.
WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 14:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
WikiDan! Is Dave Wright even a real person at all? I can't find a birth certificate to verify the bio claims. I have put in a request to the Office of vital Records in Davidson County, TN to see if we can even vet the existence of a Dave Wright.
I'm not convinced. Geraldine85 ( talk) 14:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
WikiDan! Wikipedia has been a primary target for hostile, fake "news" for about 10 years now. It is perhaps the most targeted website on the net. Subsequently, the number of completely fake articles that have made creative and effective use of aggregation techniques, et al, have made Wikipedia the unwitting foe of vetted, historical facts.
Those massive donation campaigns if years past seem to have been used elsewhere than infosec concerns.
So back to my... Dave's... this poet's Page. Created by Dlwright21 9 years ago... Should Can I help you vet?
Where should I begin? Geraldine85 ( talk) 14:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Tennessee. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 19:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTWEBHOST. I'm sorry to be rude, but the arguments made to keep this page are from 2006. In 2024, everybody knows what Wikipedia is, and is not. We are an encyclopedia of notable persons, places, things, and ideas; we have very strict requirements especially for living persons, to avoid defamation lawsuits and restrictive regulations like bills currently before the United States Congress and the UK parliament that want to destroy Wikipedia. We are a charity, not a free web host or social media website. There are lots of other options, from Youtube to "X", to Instagram, to get free coverage for poetry. Finally, we make it very well known that autobiographies, while not outright forbidden, are frowned upon, and are subject to especially strict scrutiny. In this particular case, there are zero reliable, independent, and national sources about the subject. For the record, we try to clean up false information as quicjkly as possible, but we are a volunteer-run charity. Bearian ( talk) 18:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources proving the subject's notability. This may be a case of " too soon," so once the subject has been covered by reliable sources I have no objection to the article existing. But for now, it's a delete.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 13:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Closing as keep since sources indicating notability are present, which can be incorporated into the article and can be used for further expansion. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 12:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Inshorts

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

Re-created article, twice deleted previously for not meeting WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Five references are used to cite the names of three personnel. Five more refer only to to VC funding rounds, leaving three for the actual company. Fails WP:SIGCOV and still doesn't meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Sources fail to establish WP:GNG as per nom.   Velella   Velella Talk   12:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral for now. Delete. No WP:CORPDEPTH present in the sources.— Alalch E. 13:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This AfD has reminded me of the importance of looking for sources, not relying on just those present in the article before forming an opinion and also why previous AfDs are not always relevant. Inshorts appears to have been the subject of an entire chapter in Digital First: Entrepreneurial Journalism in India, published in 2023 by Oxford University Press. This is perfect coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH: "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the...company." There's also some interesting coverage published by the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers. Coverage also from the Business Standard adds to the sense of general notability, and this is without searching in any of the many other languages of India. It appears to be one of the most-popular news apps in the world's most populous country (a democracy with a competitive news business). Find it hard to imagine a comparable American or British company being nominated for deletion. AusLondonder ( talk) 20:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thank you. I always look for sources but that OUP source is something I did not find. I will see about expanding the article using it. — Alalch E. 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I also missed that source. However, five days later, nobody has added content related to it, or included it as a reference, and we still only have a seven-sentence stub with five references used to cite the names of three personnel, and five more referring only to VC funding rounds, leaving three for the actual company. As it stands, sure, the company's app may well be hugely popular in India - but that's not in the article, either. Notability is not demonstrated. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • keep per AusLondonder. JoshuaZ ( talk) 20:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to 1977 WFA Cup final. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Carrie Staley (English footballer)

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

She fails GNG. Sources in the article do not cover Staley in depth. An archive search only found mentions in match reports. Dougal18 ( talk) 11:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - Many of the top hits are match reports. There is no sigcov of her in the articles. Dougal18 ( talk) 11:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 12:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Tamarack Developments Corporation

AfDs for this article:
Tamarack Developments Corporation (  | talk | history | 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 previous AfD was closed without consensus, and without any improvements since then, still fails notability guidelines, especially NCORP. BEFORE search turned no reliable search at least. Toadette ( Let's discuss together!) 08:16, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 08:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, which would repeat the past result, it would be nice to establish one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 🍪 Cookie Monster 11:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep the references from a quarter-century ago look good to me. Nfitz ( talk) 17:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh ( talk) 12:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final

Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final (  | talk | history | 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 men's Olympic football tournament is an under-23s tournament rather than proper full international. As such, there is no need to have separate articles for every final, unless that much is extraordinary and therefore has exceptional, WP:SUSTAINED coverage. The 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020 men's finals do not achieve sustained coverage, and therefore are just an unnecessary WP:CFORK from the main articles about football at these Olympics. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Football at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Football at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Football at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment: What part of WP:CFORK policy indicates these articles are unnecessary? Looking at WP:BADFORK, it seems like only two types of content forks ("Pages of the same type on the same subject" and "Point of view (POV) forks") are considered unacceptable, and this article doesn't fit into either of those categories. On the other hand, it does seem to fit into the WP:GOODFORK criteria of Article spinoffs: "Summary style" meta-articles and summary sections, so that seems like it would be an argument for keeping the article. -- Habst ( talk) 13:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • A page that covers the same subject as another page of the same type is often called a "redundant content fork". The most common occurrence of redundant content forks results in 2 articles on the same thing; the extra one is a "redundant article fork". A separate article on the finals is not needed, when it could be covered perfectly well in the main articles e.g. Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament, and a split is not required as the article is not too long. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Joseph2302, thank you, I don't think that describes the current situation though. There is no redundancy because all the information in Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament final isn't covered in the parent Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's tournament. If it could be covered perfectly well, then I think that would need to be done first before a deletion decision is made. In fact, the gold medal match is only given a small four-line table in the parent article with no match details at all, and despite that the article is already pretty lengthy due to having to cover every other match as well. -- Habst ( talk) 13:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • A selective merge can be done if that's the consensus of this AFD. But creating separate articles for the finals of an under-23s tournament where the main article has almost no text about its matches isn't the correct article setup. the article is already pretty lengthy due to having to cover every other match as well. That article is long because it's filled with tables and WP:NOTSTATS violations, whereas prose is what that main article needs, as per MOS:PROSE. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Joseph2302, WP:NOTSTATS says that the solution to too many stats is actually to split them out into a separate article, which I believe is contradictory to the premise of this AfD wanting to remove content forks: Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. Prose can and should certainly be added, and there is definitely enough WP:GNG coverage to summarize, e.g. at [59] and [60]. But adding prose would only make the article longer, which would further necessitate a content fork. Thanks, -- Habst ( talk) 18:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    The main article needs prose as per MOS:PROSE. Splitting the prose out into the final article instead of in the main article is not correct. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    @ Joseph2302, thanks, I do agree with that. Because the main article needs prose and is already quite long, that would necessitate splitting out some sections into content fork articles, so I'll !vote to Keep this article on that merit combined with the above WP:GNG sourcing. -- Habst ( talk) 12:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep - inappropriate bundling, but in any event there appears to be coverage out there. Giant Snowman 19:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Easily meets the standards of WP:SIGCOV and WP:SUSTAINED. The Olympics, and its football tournament, are also clearly notable events. Anwegmann ( talk) 16:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – It is exactly the finals from 2008 to now that have received enough attention from the media. In the 70s/80s there is indeed a lack of coverage, but these last four finals have extensive sources in different languages ​​available online. Svartner ( talk) 17:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:SPINOFF. I think the 2008 article needs further fleshing out, but otherwise I think the Olympic finals for the men probably stand on their own as valid spinoffs. Jay eyem ( talk) 19:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Firstly, it's not a strict U-23 tournament. It does allow for some players of any age or salary to participate on each team. Secondly, deletion was never an option here, as it would be a redirect - so it's a WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD failure. And how does one think there wouldn't be significant coverage? Nfitz ( talk) 18:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 12:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

David Shimer

David Shimer (  | talk | history | 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 apologize if this is not a good nomination I don't normally deal with biographies. He doesn't seem that notable based on Wikipedia:Notability_(people) criteria , having only published one book and that book does not seem to be that impactful to me. EvilxFish ( talk) 10:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: This strikes me as having been written by the author. Ambleside1805 ( talk) 23:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Thiruchitrambalam (soundtrack). (non-admin closure) NotAGenious ( talk) 07:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thaai Kelavi

Thaai Kelavi (  | talk | history | 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 song. Can easily be merged with Thiruchitrambalam (soundtrack). Charliehdb ( talk) 10:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

J. Sivaneswaran

J. Sivaneswaran (  | talk | history | 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 GNG and NPOL Jeraxmoira🐉 ( talk) 09:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Data is correct only — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigneswarapandian ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. Poor sources with no notable coverage on the subject. The subject does not seem to warrant a biographical page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded. RangersRus ( talk) 12:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Mostly all the reference added. Will add few reference Vigneswarapandian ( talk) 01:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but the article is referenced entirely to a mixture of run of the mill campaign coverage in the context of his non-winning campaigns and primary sourcing that does not support notability at all, so nothing else here establishes that he has preexisting notability for other reasons besides non-winning candidacies at all. Bearcat ( talk) 17:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 23:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Data is correct and accurate. All information are true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:40F4:102B:A92B:6591:BAC2:2B96:3244 ( talk) 10:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Asserting that the article is "correct and accurate" is not sufficient. The article doesn't just have to be accurate, it also has to be (a) supported by WP:GNG-worthy referencing that verifies its accuracy, and (b) meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Bearcat ( talk) 18:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per nomination and above comments. Sk1728 ( talk) 11:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 French-Russian Aerial incident

2024 French-Russian Aerial incident (  | talk | history | 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:GNG and WP:EVENT. No lasting effects, no sustained coverage – and indeed the very existence of the incident is denied by one of the parties. Rosbif73 ( talk) 08:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Support WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Fails WP:SUSTAINED, WP:GNG and fails WP:LASTING. The Russian victory stated is very dubious as one party even denies an incident happened. Not particularly noteworthy of an article. Aviationwikiflight ( talk) 13:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete What a confusing article. "Russian victory" in the sense that France didn't violate their airspace and were 40 kilometres away? Obviously this article about a non-existent incident fails every notability policy imaginable. AusLondonder ( talk) 15:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I too am confused. How does one "violate international airspace"? Surely the whole point of international airspace is that it can't be violated? Phil Bridger ( talk) 17:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Same situation as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/March 2024 Polish airspace violation: this event is not notable in the larger course of the war, and, as per above, fails WP:NOTNEWS. Gödel2200 ( talk) 13:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Delete: The "victory" earned by Russia isn't even a victory, the French planes didn't want to be involved in conflict. I would presume the Russians didn't want to do the same because of NATO's Article 5, so a removal of the article probably is best. 70.167.194.163 ( talk) 18:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Mustapha Ali Busuguma

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

Article about a non-notable politician and lawyer. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO as lawyer. Sources are basically passing mentions of the subject. Per WP:NPOL being a private secretary to a governor does not confer notability. Jamiebuba ( talk) 08:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle of Sutlej

Battle of Sutlej (  | talk | history | 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 Surjit Singh Gandhi and the Encyclopedia of Sikhism, all the sources are unreliable and have been thoroughly and repeatedly deprecated such as the Suraj Granth (a primary source written in the 1700s) and Macauliffe (a RAJ era source). Harish Dhillon is a self published source; the author was a headmaster/principal of schools which enrolled middle school children- [65] according to his book's acknowledgements. The coverage in both aforementioned sources fails Wikipedia's guidelines for significant coverage by a long shot- [66] as they only include a small paragraph about the battle. Southasianhistorian8 ( talk) 06:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Delete While the battle happened, there are not enough reliable sources for it to merit its own article. We can acknowledge the battle by including a sentence in Mughal-Sikh Wars. Ixudi ( talk) 20:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Tropical fascism

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

Something of a pro forma nomination: Svejk74 has made a few comments on the talk page going back several years to the effect that this article ought to be deleted, but said that they weren't really sure how to file an AfD. Honestly, it would probably give a better impression of what they've said to just go there and read it, but I will also transcribe it here for convenience.

(April 2020): So, looking closely at this article (which I only noticed as people kept linking it from the Khmer Rouge article): 

   Started by a banned user
   Most references didn't actually support the text
   I'm still not sure that the whole thing isn't just based on a few occurences of the phrase "tropical fascism" in a couple of books; it's certainly not a concept in "African political science" as the article originally tried to make out.

(December 2021): To reiterate my previous points:

- No evidence of this existing as a defined political concept before the Wikipedia article was started, beyond a few uses of "tropical" as a simple adjective

- None of the references originally cited supported the article

- The Portugese article has exactly the same issues, being a compilation of various statements about various quite different regimes that have been defined as 'fascist'

As stated in the opening to the article that I added a couple of years back, it seems to have been a phrase occasionally used to describe different post-colonial regimes, not a defined political concept.

[in response to a couple of references]

I would be cautious of citing anything published after the creation of this article; academics aren't above picking up phrases from Wikipedia!

I would be interested to see what the two older, Brazilian references say but again I suspect they are more likely discussing the Fascist characteristics of the Brazilian military government; also note the original Wikipedia article referred to Tropical Fascism" as a concept in "African political science" specifically.

- There is no evidence of "Tropical Fascism" existing as a defined political concept before the Wikipedia article was started, beyond a few uses of "tropical" as a simple adjective. I checked, extensively, for references in journal articles, books, anywhere pre 2014. Nothing. This is unsurprising, as the concept never actually existed.

- None of the references originally cited supported the article. They didn't talk about a distinct concept of 'tropical Fascism'; if anything they simply drew attention to quasi-Fascist aspects of a variety of (very different) postcolonial regimes.

- The Portugese article has exactly the same issues, being a compilation of various statements about various quite different regimes that have been defined as 'fascist'

As stated in the opening to the article that I added a couple of years back, it seems to have been a phrase occasionally used to describe different post-colonial regimes, not a defined political concept. In short, the user who originally created this article effectively made up the concept of "tropical Fascism", which they stated was a concept in "African political science" (it isn't, or at least wasn't until it was invented for the purposes of the article). It's OR.

(February 2022): - There is no evidence of "Tropical Fascism" existing as a defined political concept before the Wikipedia article was started, beyond a few uses of "tropical" as a simple adjective. I checked, extensively, for references in journal articles, books, anywhere pre 2014. Nothing. This is unsurprising, as the concept never actually existed.

- None of the references originally cited supported the article. They didn't talk about a distinct concept of 'tropical Fascism'; if anything they simply drew attention to quasi-Fascist aspects of a variety of (very different) postcolonial regimes.

- The Portugese article has exactly the same issues, being a compilation of various statements about various quite different regimes that have been defined as 'fascist'

As stated in the opening to the article that I added a couple of years back, it seems to have been a phrase occasionally used to describe different post-colonial regimes, not a defined political concept. In short, the user who originally created this article effectively made up the concept of "tropical Fascism", which they stated was a concept in "African political science" (it isn't, or at least wasn't until it was invented for the purposes of the article). It's OR, and dubious, slightly racist OR at that. Are we supposed to believe that there is a distinct variety of Fascism practiced by people living in "tropical" latitudes?

A user appears to be using this article as a soapbox to add various opinions about the Brazilian regime. They might be better addressed at the Brazil page than here.


Personally, I am inclined to agree with Svejk's analysis in this case: it really doesn't seem like this is a distinct concept. It seems like a "very large cake" thing: you can find lots of instances where people use the phrase "very large cake" in newspapers/books, but this doesn't mean that Very large cake should be a Wikipedia article, since it is not a coherent concept. jp× g 🗯️ 07:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • JPxG, I look at hundreds of AFDs every week and I don't understand this one. Could you condense all of this into a 2-3 sentence deletion rationale that is posted at the top of the page? I doubt many editors will wade into this wall of text to discern the nuances of your argument. Please be concise if you want to invite editors to participate in this discussion. Just my advice. Liz Read! Talk! 07:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Basically, what the fellow said on the talk page: there's not really any evidence that people are using this as a term, rather than as an adjective to describe a noun. jp× g 🗯️ 08:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Thank you, that's very helpful. Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Africa, Asia, and South America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: May be suited for an entry on Wiktionary, since it is little more than a descriptive term, but not something worthy of covering on wikipedia. As Svejk74 says, it isn't an actual concept in African, or really any other set of political sciences, and most of the parties and governments some users have sought to add to the article dont even meet an adequate number of the criteria needed to be described as fascist, rather than just bordering on it! Vif12vf/Tiberius ( talk) 15:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - on the basis that this page appears to be WP:SYNTH. The term exists in published works, but it isn't immediately clear whether the authors are actually talking about the same thing or using the same definition for it. JMWt ( talk) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom., Vif12vf, JMWt, and WP:SYNTH. Sal2100 ( talk) 19:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Fabio Dias

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

No claim that means WP:GNG. Lecturer status doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC; a search doesn't reveal coverage in reliable sources; Google Scholar shows at H-factor of 3, suggesting that there is little output (so far in his academic career) and/or that it has had little impact. Being a partner in a hedge manager with AUM of circa £1 million seems insufficient. Klbrain ( talk) 06:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Finance, Computing, England, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC). reply
  • Keep I disagree that he does not satisfy the notability requirements. He satisfies point 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. How many academics out there have become managing partners of hedge funds and stayed as academics leading their universities towards industry specific training with distinguished institutions such as Bloomberg L.P.? Giving industry talks at international professional summits while teaching their students simultaneously? As an example, Nick Anstead is also “only” a lecturer and yet there is a page for him because of contributions that he made to the outside world. Similarly Ashley Hickson-Lovence, Sanjay Jain, Paul Melo e Castro and Jeremy Munday. I see Dr Dias even more notable than these given the reach and influence of the hedge fund industry. We need to value our teachers that spend more time transferring knowledge and less time making publications just because they are doing more practical things for the students. He has contributed significantly outside of academia (academia meaning publications, which is what the H index is about) in his academic capacity, which is what the notability requirement is about. The H index is just one of many different ways of reaching notability. I disclose that I do not have a personal relationship with Dr Dias, but I was his student last year. We don’t have any professional or personal relationship since. I consulted with other students and we agreed that a Wikipedia page was warranted in his case. Several parents wanted to know more about Dr Fabio Dias during university talks and the right place for them to find this information is exactly an encyclopedia. Contributor892z 12:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Strong delete. Assistant professors (or equivalently in the UK, lecturers) usually do not pass WP:PROF and he seems no exception. Weak citation record [67] definitely fails WP:PROF#C1. No evidence of WP:GNG-based notability. PROF#C7, as argued above, is only for people so famous as being academic experts in some specialty that they are frequently sought after by the media for quotes on stories relating to that specialty, for which we also lack evidence. Keeping one foot in academia and the other in finance is not a notability criterion. Giving talks as an academic is routine and expected, not a notability criterion. The rest of contributor's arguments above reduce to WP:WAX. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don’t want to leave the impression that I have a conflict of interest on this particular article being published; you can see in my history that I have made other articles too about other academics. Having said that, looks like the only issue with WP:PROF#C7 is that I haven’t presented evidence of him being sought after by national UK media for quotes and opinion as an expert, but I am aware that these exist. I believe WP:ATD-I and WP:DRAFTIFY apply as the article is still quite new and I may have rushed moving this article to the main space. With enough time, I can find between 5-10 independent and significant examples of national media coverage about the subject, and then send the article back for review. Contributor892z ( talk) 00:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    If as you claimed earlier you were his student, then you are a student at the same institution and you have an institutional COI, at least. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Not anymore, I graduated already. I gain nothing promoting the place I graduated from and, frankly, they don’t need me for that. Contributor892z ( talk) 19:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nomination. For certain he does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, and the current article does not prove other notability -- please not the word prove. We cannot bend the rules for him as this would open floodgates, notability has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, in many respects it is Guilty until proven innocent in WP:BLP. Ldm1954 ( talk) 13:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. He satisfies points 5 and 7 of WP:NACADEMIC. In UK-based systems, that have no tenure-track, the meaning of the title "lecturer" is totally different than what it means in US-based systems. Responsabilities matter more titles. Econbrazil ( talk) 17:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC) — Econbrazil ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
    In UK-based systems, the meaning of the title "lecturer" is an entry-level academic position, roughly equivalent to "assistant professor" in US-based systems. It is very far from #C5, which is supposed to mean a step beyond ordinary full professors. The UK has full professors. Lecturers are two or three steps below them. — David Eppstein ( talk) 18:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I agree with you on C#5 but that may have just been a career choice. But I am sure that there is material out there that proves C#7 or GNG, I just need time to search. As I said, I don’t gain anything with getting this article published, but I want to have the chance to set things right by moving this article to draft and adding extra evidence when I have time to find it. Contributor892z ( talk) 19:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    WP:Common_claims_of_significance_or_importance#ACADEMIC states that a non-professor teacher at an institute of higher learning with a reputation in excellence is enough argument to keep the page as those institutions are not known for employing sub-par academics. University of Surrey is a top 90 university in the world for business and economics, higher rank than [[ Pennsylvania State University]], in the US. A top 90 world university don’t hire bad academics. So I call here the WP:PTEST. I saw in the article history that Sanjay Jain was proposed for deletion and kept because he was a non-professor at a top university. Same rules should apply here. Econbrazil ( talk) 00:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Neither GNG or PROF notability have been established. nf utvol ( talk) 18:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Found it! I have now added to the article evidence of significant coverage at national level in Brazil. I hope that will settle the case. Contributor892z ( talk) 22:14, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. The subject does not meet any of the criteria in WP:NACADEMIC to be considered sufficiently notable at this time. WmLawson ( talk) 02:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If an editor wants to work on this article in Draft space, as suggested, let me know or make a request at WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Dylan Jacob

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

Founder of a non-notable company. Article has been tagged for improvements since 2019 and is largely unsourced. Subject has appeared on Forbes' "30 under 30" list, but I'm not sure if this is enough for establishing notability. CycloneYoris talk! 04:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 05:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: This is clearly a PR item, but it's all I could find [68]. There are no RS talking about this person. Oaktree b ( talk) 23:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Lean delete. I really tried a WP:BEFORE, but there are dozens of guys with the same name. If you find better sources, please ping me. I've given up. Bearian ( talk) 18:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tamil films of 1999#October — December. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Mudhal Etcharikkai

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Can't find in this source. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) ( talk) 05:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Scion (comics)

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

Comic series, short-lived (4-years), unreferenced since 2007, my BEFORE failed to find anything useful. Fails WP:GNG, WP:V. If nobody can rescue this, potential redirects targets per WP:ATD-R: [[ Mark Alessi]] (co-creator), CrossGen (publisher). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and United States of America. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comments - Looks like Publishers Weekly reviewed the third, fourth, and fifth trade paperback collections of the series. Those were the best sources I was able to find, though, and per the WP:GNG, would collectively count as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Rorshacma ( talk) 02:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I found a good source in the Daily Oklahoman that mentions it was nominated at one point for two Harvey awards. Nominations aren't something that would give notability on their own, but this is a major enough award to imply that there is likely more coverage out there. I'll keep digging. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    This is frustrating - I found some sourcing but it's kind of light and a lot of it is reviewing it in relation to the overall CrossGen universe. The Harvey noms suggests that more coverage exists but what I can find doesn't really do a great job of backing all of that up. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    Perhaps a good alternative would be to create a page on the entire Sigilverse? There's enough info and general coverage to justify pulling that info out to its own, particularly as I note that this isn't the only title with some issues with sourcing. Of course someone would have to make this and I'm not really flush with time like I used to be. If the choice is to create the page then this could redirect with history to the main company page until someone does that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, that's the same issue I was running into looking for sources - there are a number of sources discussing CrossGen as a whole, but the only coverage in them on Scion, in specific, was usually only very brief mentions. If not a whole article on the Sigilverse, perhaps expanding CrossGen#Sigilverse to be more than just a list of the titles included in it could work as well? Rorshacma ( talk) 21:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    I've nominted this on pl wiki ( pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2024:03:11:Dziedzic (komiks)). One editor there found a source: [69]/ [70] which has a passing mention of this, which I'l quote fully - it is just two sentences, but it has a bit of analysis/reception: One of the most intriguing epic fantasies was CrossGen’s Scion , which began in 2000 and ended abruptly in 2004 with the demise of the publisher. Th e story combines romance and politics, as a prince and princess from opposing dynasties fall in love but also fi ght for the freedom of the “lesser races.”. Perhaps we can save this? Nomnation, passing assessment in SIGCOV but relible source? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I believe the secondary sources listed here and in the article in total allow to write a reasoable article and therefore fulfill the notability requirements. The Publishers Weekly reviews can complement the relatively brief referenced reception section we already have. Daranios ( talk) 11:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would help if those editors commenting in this discussion offered their opinion on what should happen to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep - In order to help build a consensus, I am going to go ahead and recommend a Keep for this current discussion, with no prejudice against a subsequent discussion for any potential Mergers. While the sources are still pretty scarce, there is enough that outright Deletion is out of the question, and simply redirecting without some kind of Merge would not really be appropriate. The series might still warrant being merged to a broader topic about CrossGen or the Silverse, as discussed, but that possibility can be decided outside of the current AFD. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2018 Oceania Youth Olympic Games Qualifier (girls' field hockey)

2018 Oceania Youth Olympic Games Qualifier (girls' field hockey) (  | talk | history | 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:SPORTSEVENT, no third party coverage and is basically a results listing. Also nominating similar article:

LibStar ( talk) 04:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to Traditional Chinese marriage. If another target article is preferred, editors can either BE BOLD or start a discussion on the Redirect talk page or WP:RFD Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Southern Chinese wedding

Southern Chinese wedding (  | talk | history | 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 topic might be notable, although my BEFORE fails to find anything. I would not be surprised if sources existed in Chinese, but the linked zh article is even worse than ours, and what we have is an unreferenced WP:OR with a single EL to a defunct website that does not look reliable. There is something a bit better at Chinese pre-wedding customs, where a talk discussion suggests a merge of this was proposed a while back. Lack of references prevents us from doing any merge, so redirecting is the least destructive option if anyone thinks this should be preserved. Anyway, to summarize, notability is not proven and the article fails OR and WP:V. PS. Another valid redirect target would be Traditional Chinese marriage where Chinese wedding redirects currently. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2016 Regent Plaza hotel fire

2016 Regent Plaza hotel fire (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

12 of the 13 sources are all from December 2016. The other source merely confirms the hotel exists. No evidence of lasting effects or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar ( talk) 03:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Tamil films of 2008#July–September. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Azhaipithazh

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

Cannot find reliable secondary which are needed for articles to exist. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources#Not reliable -- Filmibeat is unreliable. 2 sources about director dying. Needs 2 reliable reviews -- bharatstudent.com is likely unreliable (no link on Wikipedia). DareshMohan ( talk) 01:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 01:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Delete: NN film with no multiple reviews from independent and notable reviewers. Sk1728 ( talk) 10:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 01:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Golden Scythe Horror Awards

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

completely and utterly non notable award, created by an LTA (see Caillou Pettis and associated SPI cases, etc...) with no significant or meaningful coverage in actual RS. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 01:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Awards, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I can only find Instagram and The Movie Blog posts about this award, not seeing notability. No coverage outside of these sources. Oaktree b ( talk) 02:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete a quick look tells me it's some kind of elaborated hoax. No serious sources at all, don't think there's any event or any awards at all. Tehonk ( talk) 06:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I doubt it's a hoax in the strictest sense, and more likely a thing Caillou Pettis invented by himself and announces "winners" of by himself. The dude's been such a relentlessly self-promoting and self-Wikipedia-inserting wannabe in the past that this is probably just his latest "get myself into Wikipedia by any means possible" scheme. Bearcat ( talk) 18:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Christmas crackers, not this Caillou Pettis dude again. As always, awards are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in real media, not self-promotion on social networking or blogs. Bearcat ( talk) 17:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Solano, Nueva Vizcaya#Education. Liz Read! Talk! 03:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Aldersgate College

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

Unreferenced since 2008. No notable references from GNews, GSearch and Google News Archives. Alternatively, redirect to Solano,_Nueva_Vizcaya#Education-- Lenticel ( talk) 01:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 01:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Lázaro Reyes

Lázaro Reyes (  | talk | history | 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:SIGCOV. Several searches, using different keywords, brought up nothing but database pages. Anwegmann ( talk) 01:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was merge‎ to Attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

2024 Bryansk drone strikes

2024 Bryansk drone strikes (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely not notable. Randomly one of the many [71] Ukrainian strikes against Russian oil facilities got an article. Merge to Attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Super Ψ Dro 00:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 01:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yorky Arriagada

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Chilean women's footballer, to meet WP:GNG. The closest thing to WP:SIGCOV that came up in my searches was this transactional announcement from a hometown publication and this story on some community service work she did. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 01:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Kevin Kandala

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Herbert Chikomba

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete‎. ✗ plicit 01:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Shoun Handirisi

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The closest to WP:SIGCOV that I found was a pair of sentences here. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:34, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit 01:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Baxon Gopito

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

Cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG ( talk) 00:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

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

The result was keep‎. The Keep arguments aren't strongly policy-based but then neither is the deletion rationale which, to summarize, basically states that Wikipedia doesn't need this article. That's not a strong reason to delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle of the Tendra Spit

Battle of the Tendra Spit (  | talk | history | 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 actually didn't know this had happened despite following news on the war. It's definitively interesting. However it's just one of the many Ukrainian landing incursions that have happened in the occupied southern territories. So far these have been covered at Dnieper campaign (2022–present). As you can see by looking at the article there have been many such operations, with some being of a longer and larger extent than this one, and yet they don't have their own article. I think this should be merged there. We can't give an article to every single individual operation of this war. Super Ψ Dro 00:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST: The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. Just because there have been many such operations and most do not have their own articles, some of which may be more deserving of one, does not mean that there is anything wrong with an editor singling one out and expanding it into an article. ( WP:SUMMARYSTYLE) The separate article provides information for the reader at a level of detail not available in the main article, and merging it into the main article would be WP:UNDUE.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Keepthe battle was a separate landing from the Deniper campaign. Also the tendra split is located in the Black Sea. Not the Deniper river Salfanto ( talk) 02:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Also I spelt Dnieper wrong. My bad Salfanto ( talk) 12:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and move I agree with those above who say that this cannot be adequately covered in any other article. But the current title, "Battle of the Tendra Spit," does not seem to be sourced. While many sources refer to the event taking place as a battle (such as this one), it doesn't seem like any of them are refering to it as "the Battle of the Tendra Spit." Gödel2200 ( talk) 13:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_March_25&oldid=1216841240"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE