Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Sistorian (talk | contribs)
403 edits
Sistorian (talk | contribs)
403 edits
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheraldine Oudolf}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Clark}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Clark}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John West (cricketer, born 1861)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John West (cricketer, born 1861)}}

Revision as of 19:58, 2 August 2022

< August 01 August 03 >

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 redirect to List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers. It is not substantially contested here that the kind of sources required by WP:GNG have not been found after two weeks of searching. That being the case, the "keep" opinions are so weak that they have to be discounted: they use arguments now rejected by community consensus, i.e., that playing at a certain level of sports automatically establishes notability. That the nominator is a blocked sockpuppet invalidates their opinion, but not that of the other participants in this AfD. Sandstein 09:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheraldine Oudolf

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to change my comment if you can provide sources. I suggested delete because after searching for sources I find 2 google hits. I did my own name and got 900,000. WCMemail 12:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too had no luck on Google. I do not see what is bizarre, or even wrong, about nominating an article that so completely fails the significant coverage requirement. In my opinion, we must place emphasis on quality over quantity. I doubt if you will find Cheraldine in Britannica, for example. Articles about cricketers are fine if there is significant coverage because the player is well known or has accomplished an outstanding achievement, but to try and fill mainspace with articles like this is a waste of mainspace. The little we know about Cheraldine could be included in a list of Dutch players and that would be sufficient.
Sistorian (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers Must say I'm surprised at the lack of coverage in a simple search, so at redirect for now. If something is found please let me know and I'll reconsider. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sending international sportspeople to AfD without goes to show what we have become as a project. This player participated in two World Cups and has 36 WODI appearances. "I can't find any sources myself so I'll send to AfD" is not the way these things should be handled - the cricket Wikiproject is very good at finding secondary sources when necessary and prompted to do so. Of course more work needs to be put into research about women's cricket in general - but this is the nature of the sport. Bobo. 00:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Bobo. Thank you for your comments here and at the Meston case. I have been reading WP:ATD on the deletion policy page and I am beginning to think a different approach is needed. I still need to do a lot of research to get my head around the site's policies, guidelines and advice essays but I do have an idea.
Take a case like Cheraldine where the article is three short sentences of basic information lifted from a single statistical database site. As it is currently written, the article definitely fails WP:SIGCOV. As I said above, I cannot find anything else about Cheraldine online. She is an experienced international player, though, so there must be information in book, magazine and newspaper sources. Those, I fully accept, will be difficult and time-consuming to find.
Suppose I tag the article with the notability template banner and then add it to a list of cricket articles needing attention? I leave it alone for six months and then, if it is still three short statistical sentences, I do a straight redirect to List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers as suggested by Rugbyfan22? No need to involve AFD at all and, as you have requested, the cricket project sees the issue by monitoring the list and has six months to respond.
I became interested in AFD after reading the Lugnuts/Lambert cases at the Arbitration Committee. From that, I know there is going to be a reaction to the stubs created by Lugnuts although there are concerns about AFD being deluged. I would like to help with the initiative because I believe in quality over quantity and I have submitted six cases to AFD in the last few days to gain some experience of the process.
That is where I am coming from. I do not think short "stubs" like the Cheraldine article benefit the site's reputation; instead, they are an actual constraint. A reader wants useful information, more than so-and-so is a Dutch cricketer born when and where who has played in ODI matches for her country. Articles like that convince the readers that Wikipedia is a waste of space and they go away.
I do not know if my idea is practical because it might be out of process in some way. I need to fully understand what is in process. I will be happy to discuss further, of course. Thank you for your suggestions which most certainly provided me with food for thought. Best wishes.
Sistorian (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say much more than that what happens at AfD is much more than just a single situation, and for one reason or another, it has been causing issues within the cricket section for many years. Some situations resolve and some don't. Comme ci comme ca. There are more editors out there than just Lugnuts and JPL. There is still so much scope for article creation within our project, and, should you feel the need to help out, or can add more information, our project is always needing more fresh contributors. Unfortunately this and the Meston case do not work together as a single argument - international women's and domestic men's cricket are two much different animals. As I say, much more needs to be done in the world of women's international cricket, but that does not make it an invalid subject for contribution. Bobo. 08:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting by request
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Sistorian (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Clark

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. Of the three sources, one is a dead link, one is a closed statistical database and one is an open statistical database.

Sistorian (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator (WP:WDAFD). I accept the work done by the cricket editors to find additional sources justifies consensus to retain the article.

Sistorian (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Indignant Flamingo. I forgot about Wayback. However, the mentions of Jackie Clark are routine only and I still think there is a lack of significant coverage in the article.
Sistorian (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean that the Listener article, which we know to be about her, discussing the lack of coverage of her is the sorts of significant coverage that we need to keep the article we have on her? We don't need to actually be able to access the article or to include anything from it in the article, only to know that it's about her (I think, the whole NEXIST thing is something else where the goalposts seem to have moved quite randomly for me). It's unlikely that we'll be able to access a magazine article from 1987 electronically, and it may be a bit niche for NZ libraries beyond the really big ones. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NZ do have the Papers Past digitised library but its newspapers section only goes to 1979 and the other sections didn't turn up anything when I searched for Jackie Clark or Jacqueline Clark. She is briefly mentioned in this article that laments the lack of information about women's cricket in NZ. I think we would always have to verify that the "Stumping a myth" article in the Listener has significant coverage on Clark, maybe the NZ Wikiproject could help? The article is available at the National Library in Wellington and possibly other libraries according to this. Alvaldi (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of stories seems to drop off at PapersPast after the 1950s from my experience. I'll look at The Times archive when I get the chance. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well. Consensus is this article should be retained and, as a woman cricketer myself, I am pleased about that. The underlying issue, however, is the mass creation of what you call "stubs" by the conversion of bare statistics into a couple of sentences with no attempt to find significant coverage in sources more reliable than the databases. I have been randomly reviewing items in User:Lugnuts/Cricket and, taking those as a sample, I would think well over 50% would fall within the remit of the intention to implement a form of WP:CSD across Lugnuts' stubs.
I know I am permitted to accept consensus and close an AFD case I have opened but I need to check the process and make sure I do it right. I will come back soon and do that here. I am grateful to you all for working hard to save Jackie's article, but your work should have been done when the article was created. Laters.
Sistorian (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It is not substantially contested here that the kind of sources required by WP:GNG have not been found after two weeks of searching. That being the case, the "keep" opinions are so weak that they have to be discounted: they use arguments now rejected by community consensus, i.e., that playing at a certain level of sports automatically establishes notability. A redirect closure per WP:ATD is also not possible because nobody has proposed a redirect target. Sandstein 08:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John West (cricketer, born 1861)

John West (cricketer, born 1861) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Sistorian (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The “database source” in this case contains a significant prose discussion of West’s career - likely his Wisden obituary. This is often the case with Middlesex players and demonstrates clearly that anyone nominating articles sourced to CricInfo needs to click the link to check. As a result there is suitable coverage already and that’s before we go and look in a range of other places such as Middlesex histories. The nomination is, unfortunately, not using a valid rationale in this case. Shame that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a number of passing mentions - for example, one on the Notts website - and some details appear in an paper in Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, 15/1 by Keith Sandiford titled Amateurs and Professionals in Victorian County Cricket. Unfortunately I don't have access, but the snippet available in a google search suggests that there's a bit more detail there as well. He also appears mentioned several times in Cricket magazine and in an edition of Wisden, some of which is available online. This suggests that there will be more in other editions of Wisden. I imagine there's enough if someone has the time to suggest quite strongly that this passes WP:BASIC levels of sourcing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Square Thing, the Cricinfo discussion is anything but significant because it is simply statistics dressed in prose clothing. The only non-statistical information it provides, other than what is already in the article, is West having been on the MCC ground staff, which is hardly significant. I presume you could add the statistical information to the information box, as seems to be the usual practice. If you intend to expand the article using statistics only, albeit in prose form, then I do not think that will comply with WP:NOT (in the section labelled WP:NOTSTATS) and the article will still lack significant coverage because "multiple sources are generally expected".

If there is more information in histories of the Middlesex club then by all means include it. As I understand things, though, the article must cite reliable sources and cannot be left in a "before we go and look" scenario. I am still new to this, I must point out, so please explain if I am misunderstanding the process in any way. Thank you.

Sistorian (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination says The sole source is a statistical database only. That is patently not the case. Not only have you not looked to check if there are any other sources about West - which is strongly encouraged - you haven't checked the source which was in the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It patently is the case when the half a dozen lines of prose consist almost entirely of statistics with words between the numbers. The case is well put by User:Wjemather below. The coverage is brief to the point of insignificance.
With all six of the articles I have nominated, I carried out a Google search and found nothing except Wikipedia, its mirrors, sources already in the article like ESPN, and other statistical sites which do not seem reliable. You have said before that there may be content in Middlesex club histories but I do not have access to such books. As I understand the significant coverage requirement, there must be multiple reliable sources and they must be cited in the article. Please do not assume I have not checked Google or the ESPN article. I assure you I have.
Sistorian (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help but think if the first thing a new editor does is add six articles for deletion, they think something needs fixing with the project which they don't understand will take more than a batch-add of deletion discussions. There are better ways to handle content than adding everything that displeases you, as a new editor, to AfD. There are issues here which date back years, not just a month since you discovered the site and became au fait uncharacteristically quickly with deletion discussions and ArbCom cases. Bobo. 08:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had access to Wisden from somewhere, as I say, if you have access, feel free to add, otherwise really telling me that I'm wrong in giving others impetus to help out is counterproductve. My main point was that these issues are not taken to WT:CRIC first and need to be otherwise we get half a dozen delete votes from people who have nothing to contribute, and a fair number of contributions to the article in the interim... but that's happened many times and won't stop in a hurry. Bobo. 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As already indicated by BST, it would seem clear that the Cricinfo profile contains the entirety of the Wisden obit; since it does little more than summarise his statistics, it barely reaches the threshold of significant coverage. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For someone who played that number of games, and umpired an official test it is highly likely that GNG passing sourcing exists. His name is particularly common, obviously with tuna, other cricketers and other umpires in other sports so searching is difficult, but with what we have and what we know I imagine there will be GNG passing sourcing out there. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked into this some more and slept on it, I think there's a really interesting story here, but it's going to take some serious work to unpick all the strands and piece together all the pieces - at least two or three days worth of work and picking through newspapers and so on. And that's without access to old and expensive Wisdens. I will, hopefully, find time to do that work, but it won't happen for days if not a few weeks and it'll be quicker if nothing else comes up that is a higher priority. For that reason I'd rather keep the article for now at least. If the story doesn't pan out the way I think it will then it'll be obvious in six months time I guess. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Currently, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, as well as being a WP:NOTDATABASE violation. Normally, this would warrant deletion, but since Blue Square Thing believes they can improve the article, given sufficient time, I believe draftification would be a suitable compromise; either they can improve the article and it is returned to article space, or they can't and we don't need to waste our time with a second AfD in six months. BilledMammal (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There wouldn't be a second AfD. I'd redirect it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting by request. I'll let another admin close this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify I never found any SIGCOV on him in the British Newspaper Archive, perhabs I gave up to soon as there are ALOT of articles of people with the same name. This message board is the best I found. Of course, it can´t be used as a source but someone there did have better luck of finding some information on him so maybe someone here can use it to help narrow their searches. Alvaldi (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's in Wisden plenty of times, the problem is getting access to really old (and expensive) Wisdens. Note that I would suggest very strongly that drafting this article is completely against a long-term consensus at AfD which has been established since at least 2018 to redirect if nothing can be found. I think in this case there is so much evidence of sources existing that there's an argument for keeping, at least for a period of time, but would much prefer a redirect to drafting. If it's drafted it won't get worked on (I can absolutely guarantee that I won't work on it) and will be deleted in six months. If it's redirected it may get worked on, we retain the attribution and source history and we retain the links to and from lists etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blue Square Thing Redirecting it is also fine by me. Alvaldi (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there hasn't been a single delete !vote on this article and the nomination was by a sock-puppet. Was deletion review even mentioned at the time? Deletion review only gave us one !vote to relist. Was re-listing really necessary? As we've said, there's a lot ot unpick that we won't get done overnight. Bobo. 08:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? How about you source this instead of obsessing over process. You do have a source don’t you? Spartaz Humbug! 14:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically I probably care less for process than almost anyone else. "Process" gets in our way of achieving our goal. Unfortunately, as a project, we have reached an impasse as regards what that goal is. Some of us think the project should be horizontal, some of us think the project should be vertical, and in many cases, ne'er the twain... Bobo. 19:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t make needless procedural objections if you don’t consider process important unless you want to be accused of process wonkery. There is no impasse, there was a massive fuck off RFC that set a standard. Folks just arguing contrary are being disruptive and clearly throwing sand into the gears to slow down the inevitable cleanup. There was an arbitration request that reinforced the risks of that behaviour. Spartaz Humbug! 18:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we were working to the same goal, no "process" would be needed. And an "inevitable" clean-up which will not happen without the mass-deletion of dozens of articles of players with scores of appearances, contrary to the goals of the project. A tragic indication of what we have become. Bobo. 19:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You make my point perfectly. Firstly you put the aims of your wikiproject ahead of the expressed desire of the community and a settled community consensus and then you have the effrontery to assume that I am working to different goals then you. Next you will be applying some silly label as a way of making it ok to ignore an opinion reflecting community consensus. Classy. Spartaz Humbug! 16:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the keep votes are based on policy established at an extremely well attended RFC that requires sports bios to have at least a single decent reliable source. As Noted cricinfo is a sports database (a bloody brilliant one) but turning statistics into propose is not an RS. The closing admin should note that there is an entrenched WP:Cricket contingent voting here who are clearly opposed to the will of the community but have singularly failed to provide the required source. wiki projects do not have the right to stick two fingers up to the community and force through non policy based outcomes by making frankly risable non policy based arguments. If the sourcing is not provided then the policy based outcome is delete although personally I think its high time lists of cricketers by team and period were created for these articles so we can simoly redirect them until the sources are found. Spartaz Humbug! 14:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete. Per the arguments from BST, BM, Alvaldi, and Spartaz. I agree that SIG sourcing needs to be shown to exist, but that redirection is viable until then. JoelleJay (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The guidelines are quite clear that a source that fails NSPORT but passes GNG can and should be kept. Some keep !voters are asserting the subject passes GNG (not NSPORT) which would be grounds for keeping regardless of the RFC, but I'd like to see some actual evidence of that if I'm going to !vote to keep. To say that "Keep because GNG" is "not based in policy" is simply false, but on the other hand, I'd like to see some evidence that he actually passes it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We know, because there are the odd snippet views, that there are mentions in Wisden. Beyond that, we know that he was on the MCC's staff for a long period - until way after he finished playing which is odd - and was given two benefit seasons by Middlesex, the first player to be given a second; both of those were after he'd finished playing as well. We know that players like this were profiled in Lillywhite's guides - for example, the other John West is profiled here. The problem is that we can't access those sources. And he umpired a Test.
There's something going on here and I'm 99% certain that a) sources exists and b) there's a story that's worth looking into. But it's going to take time and effort. I'm hopeful, per the discussion going on about access to sources at the cricket project, that we might have a way in to some of those sources - thanks to Spartaz's connections.
Can I show sources exist right now? No, I can't - beyond snippet views and the like. But this John West played 86 matches compared to the other John West's 52. He had two benefit seasons compared to one match. There's something there you know - the message board post that Alvadi found suggests as much. But there's no online sourcing.
So, if it has to be redirected, fine. I'll see what I can find and bring it back as a test case at some point if I'm able to. If people are happy to give it six months in main space, then that's fine as well - if I've found nothing after that I'll redirect it myself. If you really must delete it then go ahead, delete it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Meston

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ESPN paragraph is another example of statistics put into words, as is the case with the John West article. It adds nothing of value to the brief information already in the article, except perhaps that Meston was an amateur player. I cannot say if that is important or not.
Sistorian (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curious to that this user claims to have one month's experience on here, having created zero articles, then all of a sudden magically appears nominating articles like a pro at AfD. I doubt they are a new user, through their deletion nom of a female international cricketer is pretty ironic considering their userpage blurb. StickyWicket (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:AssociateAffiliate. In the words of Michelle Madow: "Everyone has to start somewhere. If you let people bring you down now, you'll never know how high you could climb. And you owe it to yourself to try".
I am not aware of any requirement to create articles before venturing into AFD. I have followed the WP:AFDHOWTO and Twinkle instructions very carefully. These are clear and well written so, as (I think) I am fairly bright, I have been able to place my first few entries. I have not, however, had the confidence to try a WP:MULTIAFD yet, which would perhaps have been the ideal way to present the Meston/Greene/West cases. I will make sure I can manage individual entries first and then try a multiple one someday.
As for nominating two female cricketers, their articles lack significant coverage and I am not a feminist, let alone a militant feminist, so I fail to see any irony. You refer to my "userpage blurb" and, yes, I am a woman and a lesbian and an environmentalist and many other things. If you have any problems with those, then I am sorry but they are me and I doubt if I will ever change. Do please reconsider your decision to retire, however, because something like this can hardly be worth getting steamed up about.
Sistorian (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting NCRIC certainly does not mean that a subject meets GNG by extension. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Greene

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford FM

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

Non notable local radio station. From looking at sources online and beyond, we can see slight local interest that falls foul of WP:GNG beyond a wider audience than one town. Furthermore, original article appears to be created by a DJ/Staff Member who has not declared a WP:COI   Kadzi   (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although cited sources are somewhat sparse, article is factual, accurate and harmless. This matters more than blind obedience to WP policies. Harumphy (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not how WP:NOTABILITY works on Wikipedia. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article sites three independent reference and I see no issues with WP:GNG. Rillington (talk) 13:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Station holds a broadcast licence and originates its own programming so passes WP:BCAST but the article could use a clean up and rewrite (no need for it to include schedule information, for instance, and it needs some references as it was clearly written by someone close to the station). Flip Format (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 have to discount the one "keep" opinion because it contains personal attacks. There is just not enough substantive discussion here for consensus. Sandstein 09:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cena–Orton rivalry

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

No indication of notability. As it appears to largely be a plot summary, it fails WP:PLOT. There is only one source which comes close to indicating its importance, which is a primary source from WWE itself (no independent or seconadary sources which are preferred to establish importance) which simply labels it as Cena's top feud in a top 10 list. Again, this fails to establish notability. — Czello 22:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Sports, and Wrestling. — Czello 22:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As far as I see it this is a topic that potentially could be shown to be notable (same with other wrestling rivalries), but, since Cena and Orton already have articles that cover this topic better there is not really any use for this article as of now. I'd say delete since neither man is more of a primary target for a redirct. ★Trekker (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Cena–Orton rivalry is equivalent to the Federer–Nadal rivalry rivalry in professional wrestling, both tp stars in the WWE with a lengthy acclaimed feud, acknowledged as John Cena (one of the biggest name in wrestling history)'s greatest rivalry per this and many other WP:RS beside this: [4], every line is well sourced so its notable, this is Czello vendetta against me, as his friend User:ItsKesha who has been topic banned from wrestling and is under 1 month GS due to numerous edit wars and content disputte, as proven here Czello crying ver his banning: [5], the duo have a hostory of teaming against other editors including myself as in the John Cena artcile: [6], so yes this is pure biased "meating" and neglecting countless unreliable articles they tartget the one I made which is WP:GTS and also this article is sufficiently sourced and this rivalry is well acknowledged in the world of professional wrestling. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I used to have huge respect for Czello but am shocked by this vendetta and teaming with topic banned user, also there are many many sources besides WWE's own (which is widley accepted WP:PW/RS that cites this feud's greatness: [7] and [8] are just two out of many examples, people can google it to find its extreme notability. Dilbaggg (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
every line is well sourced so its notable No, this isn't how it works. You need to establish the importance of this feud, and so far no sources do. The one that comes the closest is the first one, which is simply a top 10 list. If you feel that you think any of the sources do establish its notability, please list them. I'm going to ignore the rest of this comment as it's a rather bizarre and conspiratorial violation of WP:AGF. — Czello 21:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You neglected the two sources I pointed above, and I am adding yet another f countless WP:RS like this to the article: [9]. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bleacher Report can only be used for minor statements like match results per WP:PW/RS. Republicworld is not reliable per the same link. I will grant you that Pinkvilla does say it is "arguably" on of the greatest feuds - but this link is nowhere to be found in the article. Would you like to add it? — Czello 11:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Czello bleacher report said a minor statement here, that this is one of the feud that defined a generation, its a reliable WP:RS and even has its own article Bleacher report and PW is under WP:GS so their opinion on RS doesn't apply much at the moment. Anyway they only asked to refrain from pre 2013 sources, the source I gave is 2022, thank you for acknowledging the other one though. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Minor statement" means an undisputed fact like "Orton won this match", not "one of the greatest feuds ever" - which, again, the source doesn't actually say. What statement are you hoping to source with the Bleacher Report link? If you have a definitive source somewhere that Bleacher Report is reliable for more than that, I'll happily concede - but I took your suggestion and looked through the WP:RSN archives and I could find nothing but criticism. Also the pre-2013 comment means this is when it went from "not reliable" to "partially reliable".
I'm happy to add the Pinkvilla link - I know you believe I have some kind of vendetta against you or your articles, but honestly all I want is from this to be better sourced, which Pinkvilla does. — Czello 11:49, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Czello, thanks for acknowledging, we are fellow editors and we should do our best to make great articles like this, glad you understand how notable this is, best wishes bro. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think, Dilbaggg, you should Wikipedia:Assume good faith from Czello and not a conspiracy against you or your articles. Now, about the article, I think the Orton Cena feud is a good feud, but the article is just a list of results and reports. Worst, it's WP:In-Universe. Ex: "Orton then attacked Cena's father who was sitting at ringside by punt kicking him and seriously injuring him." The article has no mention about real life events. How the feud was received, why the feud it's so important. Just a 411Mania mention and Cesaro comment. But there are no other sources about the feud. If you work on the article, it may be a keep, but this adds nothing to the Cena/Orton articles. Sadly, there are no other wrestling feuds, the Hogan/Andre also has in-universe. The Federer/Nadal article has sections like Analysis, competitive dynamic... --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All wrestlers aricles have some plot elements, but this also has many things like how the matches were seen, the praises of the matches, the criticims of the lenght of the feud and also how Cena and Orton views each other irl. Like Nadal-federer in tennis and Messi–Ronaldo rivalry in football this article shows emphasis in oe of the most prominent rivalry in pro wrestling. Dilbaggg (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dilbaggg: I think Federer–Nadal rivalry is a great example of what this article could be but isn't. The #Analysis section or the #Relationship and competitive dynamic details why their feud was so significant. If that kind of notability were established in this article I'll happily withdraw this deletion nomination. — Czello 12:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there a list of WWE storylines, major events, or some such? The coverage of the topic seems to be limited to trivial pop culture articles at a first glance, but being merged to a list would make sense. TTN (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 06:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issa Fazli

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

The article does not seem to fulfil the requirement of Notability; The only part that I think comes close is the last section, which, however, is also not notable enough as per WP:EVENT Yet Another Internet User (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sad story for sure, but the individual isn't notable as a paralegal. I find zero sources about them. Being transgender alone isn't enough for notability; while they struggled to get out of Pakistan, it's nothing terribly noteworthy for our purposes. They aren't notable as a writer, and rather run of the mill as a paralegal. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against renomination Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lalo Encinas

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. The uncredited roles outnumber the credited ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I improved ref3 so anyone can read it without a Newspapers.com account. That ref is probably the most in-depth coverage. Searching does find plenty of hits, but they I didn't see anything more substantial - mostly just listing his name as appearing in a film, or in a list of "Native-American" actors. MB 01:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this article violates "no original reasearch" rules. We source that statement on his Apacheness to a source over 100 years old, and then say this is contradicted by census records based on no source, but I am guessing the person who wrote that may have looked at the census records. Wikipedia editors should not be trying to directly parse meaning out of census records and other primary documents, they should be building articles on statements by reputable scholars. If we lack those, as we do here, we should not have an article, period.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 05:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Albertini Holness

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Das osmnezz and Rylesbourne, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT, which does not attempt to advance an argument as to how Engerman is notable, and gave less weight to Fats40boy11, who falls into the trap of SOURCESEXIST. Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Engerman

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense, GNG is based on significant coverage not what team they've played for. –dlthewave ☎ 03:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni and gave less weight to the comment from Das osmnezz, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT, which does not attempt to advance an argument as to how Robinson is notable. Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Robinson (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Ebanks

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni, Das osmnezz, and Skippo10, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kion Parchmont

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni and Das osmnezz, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT and XtraJovial, which do not attempt to advance an argument as to how Burris is notable. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kareem Burris

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni andDas osmnezz, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT, which does not attempt to advance an argument as to how Bryan is notable. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shemari Bryan

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

HeinzMaster (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni and Das osmnezz, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT, which does not attempt to advance an argument as to how Smith is notable. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tafari Smith

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 community came to a consensus in March that international and professional caps alone do not confer notability and WP:NFOOTY was deprecated. Based on that, I disregarded the comment by Zanoni and Das osmnezz, which attempts to LOCALCONSENSUS around the community's decision. I also disregarded the comment from NemesisAT, which does not attempt to advance an argument as to how Brooks-Belle is notable. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kayini Brooks-Belle

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" opinions must all be discounted, because they all fail to address the reason provided for this deletion request: lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Nobody here seems to be able to find such coverage, and it is by now clear community consensus that such coverage is required for an article. Sandstein 09:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Deans

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 22:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - where is the significant coverage? Google News has hits but it's for a Gaelic footballer from Ireland of the same name. Definitely not the same Jordan Deans. ProQuest has plenty of hits but, again, it's for the other Jordan Deans. I can't comment on whether the Irish Jordan Deans meets WP:NGAELIC but from my searches I can say that the Anguillan Jordan Deans fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC due to a complete absence of significant coverage that is independent of the subject. The 'keep' comments above have no relevance to any accepted policy or guideline and appear to be WP:LOCALCONSENSUS or invalid. Comments relating to the number of nominations, the number of caps or the age of the player are irrelevant. The article clearly violates SPORTBASIC which states Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. The article is linked only to database websites with low standards for inclusion and so violates another part of the same guideline which says Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Number of caps cannot be used to presume notability, per a broad consensus that removed that metric from WP:NSPORT. BilledMammal (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am more persuaded by the delete arguments around the necessity of independent sourcing for a BLP then keep arguments that articles that are basically interviews are independent. Spartaz Humbug! 12:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jehn Joyner

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found these sources which show he is notable in Northern Mariana Islands: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. In addition, he is a young, already internationally capped player (4th most capped in his country) with an ongoing career who helped Northern Mariana Islands youth team beat Macau 2-1 their first international win at any level , one of few Northern Mariana Islands players to ever play abroad, and is mentioned in countless match reports and videos. I feel like the nominator specifically tries to delete only football articles en masse for no reason. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. By the time I write this another 30 are probably deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you understand what WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV is? I doubt it. The second article is not independent of the subject, as it primarily relies on quotes from the subject. #3 and #4 are clearly not significant coverage of the person. Both articles discuss the subject for less than 100 words, which means it fails the WP:100 words criteria. The fifth source mentions the subject's name four times, all in a trivial manner. The sixth source mentions the subject once, to introduce a quote, which of course is not independent of the subject. The seventh source mentions the source three times, all trivial mentions of the subject such as "Joyner provided the go-ahead point in the 53rd minute". Please stop spamming these AFD discussions with links that clearly do not demonstrate GNG. It is distruptive. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither WP:SIGCOV or WP:INDEPENDENT says newspaper interviews (or any interviews for that matter) make the article not independent of the subject. Nfitz (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Literally WP:SIGCOV says "Independent of the subject". An interview with the subject is not independent of the subject lol. I don't know how else to put it, but clearly you are not understanding what WP:INDEPNDENT is. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Go back and read it again. There is literally no mention of interviews - let alone articles that partially incorporate interviews in national newspapers. SIGCOV also links to INDPENDENT which also has no mention of interviews, etc. The issue is press releases and their ilk, not interviews by national newspapers. Nfitz (talk) 23:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources 1 and 2 cited above (which were never rebutted by nominator) are by themselves sufficient to get us over GNG, which is sufficient to keep the article regardless of whether the other sources provided also do. Although the sources are not currently cited in the article as allegedly required by NSPORT, GNG does not require that, and if the article meets GNG, it should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Source 2 as listed on the comment right above yours, is primarily quotes from the subject. This would fail "independent of the subject". One source is not enough to satisfy GNG or SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point out the criteria that say articles that include an interview are not "independent of the subject". Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that is pretty self explanatory. A person giving an interview about themself, is not independent. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's not self-explanatory. It might not be the best reference for a particular questionable fact; but that a national newspaper is publishing articles that include in-depth interviews is meeting GNG. There are no Wikipedia guidelines or policies to support your claim. I asked for you to point out the relevant Wikipedia criteria about interviews, and you only waved your hands, and offered your opinion. Please stop nominating articles on this basis - it is disruptive. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 15:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Passes GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. Source 1 isn't enough. Dougal18 (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. Of the sources, the article on him making the USF dean's list is probably the best of the bunch but there isn't a whole lot there once you take away the qoutes from his teacher and parents. The other sources from saipantribune.com are a couple of match reports [16][17] and mention of him winning a student award[18]. But if we treat the first as sigcov, the others don't count towards GNG as multiple publications from the organization is generally regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Of the mvariety.com sources, this one is mostly based on his own words and thus a primary source and the other two are match reports[19][20] have trivial menions of him. Alvaldi (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the newspaper sources clearly meet GNG. Nominator is falsely claiming that newspaper articles that include interviews are not independent of the subject - despite there being no mention of such criteria in either WP:SIGCOV or WP:INDEPENDENT. Nfitz (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The first Saipan Tribune source, announcing he made his college honor roll, is pretty much the definition of "local news hype" and is not remotely encyclopedic. Every student making the Dean's list gets a letter sent home about it, and sometimes their parents send it on to their local newspaper because they are proud of their child -- which is clearly what happened here given the quotes from the father. This is totally routine non-news and doesn't count toward GNG Red XN. The first Marianas Variety source has three non-quote sentences: not remotely SIGCOV Red XN. The second Saipan Tribune ref is more hyperlocal news announcing he won the "TSL Foundation Male Student Athlete of the Month", which can be immediately disregarded per YOUNGATH Red XN. The second Marianas Variety source is a namedrop and two quotes: obviously not SIGCOV Red XN. The third ST source is a routine match recap Red XN. The third MV source is one quote from him Red XN. The fourth ST source is more of the hyperlocal youth coverage excluded by YOUNGATH Red XN. Quotes, whether enclosed in quotation marks or not, and whether explicitly part of an interview or not, cannot contribute to GNG as they are not independent appraisals of the subject (obviously) and are primary. There is no such thing as "the fact he was interviewed shows he's notable" because GNG is met through significant secondary independent published commentary on a subject in multiple RS, not achievements or other non-SIGCOV "evidence" that the subject has been recognized. JoelleJay (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NBASIC (No multiple independent sources where combining demonstrates notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.) and WP:SPORTCRIT. Sources do not provide enough independent significant coverage for much more than a pseudo biography (nothing near "full and balanced") which is a requirement for a BLP. This is just a listing of a team player. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BASIC Lightburst (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage. This is a BLP and its insufficient. scope_creepTalk 04:44, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. There is consensus here, albeit weak, that an article in mainspace isn't suitable at the moment. As there's some material in reliable sources that could plausibly grow, the argument to draftify is more persuasive than that supporting outright deletion. Those arguing to keep, both here and at the previous AfD, have spammed a lot of links, but have not demonstrated that any of them constitute substantive coverage. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzalo Lira

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

This article has been nominated for deletion twice before: first (deleted), second (no consensus). The closer's suggestion after the second nomination was to revisit the discussion "when [Lira is] no longer in the news". This third nomination is taking place three months after the last one. Gonzalo Lira gained very brief prominence during the conflict in Ukraine because of his short disappearance, which was due to an alleged detention by the SBU (for which no evidence was ever produced). Since then, nothing noteworthy has happened, and is unlikely to happen. Other than that, Lira is just known for a couple poorly received films and a few books. I do not think it is WP:DUE to have an article about Lira. His views are fringe, and he's essentially just a vlogger. During the previous discussion, there was a lot of traffic as a result of canvassing, which I hope we can avoid this time round. BeŻet (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As with the successfully deleted page on Patrick Lancaster, the Lira page relies heavily on 1) a brief mention in an NBC article; 2) a brief mentions in a questionable source (Firearms News); 3) an article in The Bulwark (website) and The Daily Beast; 4) articles on his disappearance in places like Cyprus Mail and some Spanish language sources. All of these (except NBC, which has a single sentence on him) are mostly inspired by or about Lira's alleged "detention" by the SBU. There are also a few sources or reviews on him as a novelist or film maker, but these also do not seem particularly noteworthy to me. I think it's obvious that the article was created because of Lira's popularity among a certain "anti-Western" or "pro-Russian" crowd on YouTube and Twitter, not because of his failed endeavors as a filmmaker or novelist: having an article making him seem more respectable and legit.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep the above users particularly Eremenrich, know about the notability of this youtube personally because they have edit warred for months about how to shape the article. Removing many sources. This is a well established youtube personality. John 2A00:1370:8172:9394:54C6:36CE:F88B:2EF (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC) This signature is deceptive-this #vote is by an IP, not an established user.[reply]
Note to closer: This IP, who has probably edited under user names given their strange dislike of me, has few or no edits outside this topic area and is also WP:canvassing editors it thinks likely to support keeping the article, see [25], [26].—Ermenrich (talk) 11:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Made up by himself. Should be banned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.109.90 (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to draft pending development of substantial encyclopedic coverage, which does not appear to exist at this time. BD2412 T 19:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a good solution, so that the content does not get entirely removed in case Lira does in fact become more notable. BeŻet (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would hope this doesn't get to another AfD (for a 4th time). Perhaps even draftifying could be an option, but I don't think much will come up; we haven't found decent enough sources now. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should remain as this person is very influential among leftists such as Yves Smith and the pro-Russia, Anti-American left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatherineTheGreat2022 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak draftify; keeping wouldn't be the end of the world. There's a decent amount of reporting on his alleged abduction, and reporting on him more broadly from two sources that are reliable enough for our purposes (The Daily Beast and The Bulwark). If the coverage of the alleged abduction had been more in-depth, I'd probably come down keep, and I think one or two more instances of RS coverage about him as a person would get to keep. As it stands, I don't think it would particularly hurt the encyclopedia to keep this in mainspace, but it probably falls a bit shy of GNG. (Disclosure: I'm working on a draft that mentions Lira, so I suppose I have a nonzero bias in favor of having an article to link to.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Proposed second Scottish independence referendum. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 proposed Scottish independence referendum

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

The subject matter is covered by proposed second Scottish independence referendum. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Aninzo

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found these sources which show he is notable in the Northern Mariana Islands: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 among other sources. In addition, he is a young, already internationally capped player with an ongoing career,, one of few Northern Mariana Islands players to ever play abroad athe only one in England, nd is mentioned in countless match reports and videos. I feel like the nominator specifically tries to delete only football articles en masse for no reason. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 30. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would say this very lengthy Saipan Tribune piece and the M Variety article are enough for GNG. We need to be wary that there are only two decent newspapers in his country by the looks of things so it's difficult to gain the coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources required. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) On second thought, the M Variety source is too weak for this to be a GNG pass. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The M Variety article is almost entirely direct and indirect quotes, and should not be considered independent SIGCOV. That leaves just the Saipan Tribune interview, which has just 8 sentences of non-quoted material and only ~3 that aren't primary or non-independent (like reporting that he thanked various people). Not seeing GNG from these sources. JoelleJay (talk) 04:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 11:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is a somewhat closer call than most of the other football-related AfDs we've seen recently, but I'm still not convinced that the available sources add up to notability. Of the seven sources cited above, four are clearly passing mentions and one is a Twitter post. That leaves us with two sources: the Marianas Variety article, which is entirely a non-independent interview (every sentence is either paraphrases Aninzo or quotes him directly), and the Saipan Tribune article, which is at best a few sentences of independent analysis. Since I've been unable to find any indication that better sources exist (either online or offline), he doesn't seem to have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I understand that there aren't many media outlets in the Northern Mariana Islands, but my view—and, judging from the consensus in the RfC, the view of others as well—is that hewing to the notability guidelines in cases like these is almost always going to be the best way to ensure that we're only keeping articles that can live up to basic policy expectations. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the cogent argument by Extraordinary Writ above. Agreed that the sourcing is too weak to support even a presumption of GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I still think that the Saipan Tribune article linked multiple times in this discussion is good. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any other good sources. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was rework as a prose article covering the history of anime distribution in the United States. The copy-paste draft at Draft:History of anime in the United States may be used for this after a history merge has been completed; alternatively, the parent article could be moved into draftspace if a history merge isn't feasible. I do not perform history merges myself, and offer no opinion on which route is preferable, but there is consensus against the continued existence of this article in mainspace. Apologies for any confusion that may have resulted from the previous closing statement: I hadn't realized the existing draft was a copy-paste userfication. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of anime distributed in the United States

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

Massively useless list with overly broad inclusion criteria. Fails to explain why a list of anime released in the US is significant. From about the 2000-2010s onwards, the inclusion criteria effectively expands to nearly all anime- it would be much more notable if a recent anime had not been released in the United States. The prose does have some promise, but it is nearly entirely unsourced and far too excessively detailed for this purpose, and it would be better served being reworked into a different article with a clearer focus (I've already WP:USERFIED the page content with the intent of trying to do something of the sort when I have the chance). As such, I believe this list should either be deleted or else reworked into a more constructive list that has less broad inclusion criteria. Joyce-stick (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This argument is neither valid nor persuasive, as it constitutes WP:ILIKEIT (an argument that we prefer to not make in any deletion discussions). In addition, your account appears to be a WP:SPA, as your sole edit thus far has been to oppose this page's deletion. Before participating in the discussion further I'd recommend you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and in particular, WP:NLIST and WP:LISTCRITERIA, which are especially pertinent here. If you have and would like to attempt an argument for why this page does satisfy the conditions stipulated under those guidelines, then by all means feel free to do so. Joyce-stick (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2022 (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, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I would wait until the draft is completed. NavjotSR (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer. While I don't think that this is necessarily notable for the mainspace (I haven't looked in deep enough to determine that), the very fact that this content has been userfied will create issues with Wikipedia's licensing and the copyrights. Per WP:RUU, the page history will need to be merged to any place where the content from this page has been userfied, should this page be deleted. As such, it appears to be the case deletion will require a WP:HISTMERGE to be performed for legal reasons. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 06:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that the userfied copy has been moved to draft space as Draft:History of anime in the United States per the suggestion of another user in the discussion.
    I was not aware of this policy regarding attribution. Had I known, I would have started this AfD first with a proposal to userfy or draftify upon deletion, rather than the other way around, but I guess the ship's sailed now. I'll be sure to keep the policy in mind for any future similar cases. Joyce-stick (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EEMBC

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

Seems to mostly consist of advertising Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 17:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Femke (talk) 18:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 21:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drago Đurić

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

Somewhat generic name, but can't find proof of WP:GNG for this specific holder. All the references in the article seem to be primary sources, and many are archived. A Google Books search doesn't seem to mention him anywhere in the first few pages, a search of general Google with site:rs shows a bunch of other people. Actually found a cursory reference to his son being famous for something unrelated, but again no significant coverage of the father. Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dead People (novel)

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

An article created by an WP:SPA on book that does not appear to pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. There are currently no reliable sources included in the article. I searched for any kind of coverage or reviews using both the English "Dead People" and Spanish "Gente Muerta" titles, and turned up very little outside of press releases or blog entries. The Spanish language Wikipedia has an article on the book, but it is largely identical to this one and also lacks any reliable, secondary sources. I was also unable to find any real information on the listed publisher of the book as well. One Spanish-language blurb I found seemed to state that the author self-publishes his work, but this was through using Google Translate on my end, so take that info with a grain of salt. I am bringing this to AFD rather than using a WP:PROD in the hopes that someone who understands Spanish may have more insight. Rorshacma (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jan te Nijenhuis

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

Not notable enough to have a stand alone biography article, the article has been a stub since 2018 consisting of two lines. The second source looks dead, the third source is unreliable. Jan te Nijenhuis publishes racist pseudoscience for the Mankind Quarterly [32] and the only other main journal he has published in is the Intelligence (journal) which also has a history of publishing eugenics and racist pseudoscience and fringe stuff peddling the Spearman's hypothesis. The third source on the article was written by Michael Woodley (this is the white supremacist who was recently exposed in the New York Times [33]). Nijenhuis and Woodley have co-authored papers in fringe journals [34] so it is hardly an independent or neutral source. In conclusion I am not seeing enough reliable sources for this guy to have an article at Wikipedia. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete. This person is not a notable academic, and most of their published work is in pseudo journals. 2603:8081:8040:3186:341D:DE51:533A:925B (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He seems to be widely known and quoted for his research claiming a decline in intelligence and (counter to the scientific consensus) claims that a significant factor in this supposed decline, in western countries, is genetic and linked to immigration from other parts of the world. We don't have to believe these racist theories to recognize that he might be notable for his work in this area. However, per WP:FRINGE, our article needs to state this all clearly, not merely to say that he is a psychologist. He is well cited, so he has a case for WP:PROF#C1, but I think the case for #C7 (influence on the non-academic world) may be stronger. I found multiple sources in apparently-reliable publications on this:
    • Editorials on his work on race and intelligence: [35], [36]
    • Explainer on his research in a science-communication web magazine: [37]
    • Academic articles published in direct response to his work, with his name in the title: [38], [39], [40], [41].
—David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep Per the source discussion above, seems to pass notability. I don't agree with much of anything he spouts, but so long as we discuss it using NPOV, it's fine for here on wiki. Oaktree b (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above. There are additional sources on and beyond. No doubt that he is a well covered expert in his field. The fact that he is provocative (still a positive frame) doesn't seem to damage his notability either. gidonb (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April Engelberg

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, never been elected to a political office and failed the previous time they ran. Not notable in any way for any other reason and makes no claims to be. Purely a failed politican candidate of which there are thousands. Possible COI with creator. Canterbury Tail talk 17:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No prejudice against recreation if she does attain notability in the future. However it's also possible that just being elected to Toronto council, should it happen, isn't enough for notability. Oh and there's a definite COI, as the creating user posted this on their user page before deleting it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of what's written about her is in relation to the decision to the provincial government to cut the number of municipal wards mid election, she was one of the unlucky that had her electoral riding carved up as the election was happening. As a lawyer, she isn't notable. She was never a politician. Can review if/when she wins the election in October. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your points about notability, though I argue that several of her competitors that have also not been nominated do have wikipedia pages. Also the news articles linked show that she is a well-known member of the community, and that should make her notable, no? I can link more TV interviews if necessary.
About the COI, I do not know her well. She lives in my building, that's all. When I first made the article I read that I should state this as COI since I wasn't sure and wanted to air on the cautious side, but my first edits were deleted immediately without any discussion at all, which I thought was unfair, so that's why I removed it. VicenteEsnaola (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linc Limited

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

non-notable corp spam PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Femke (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given the controversy surrounding this religious leader, we might see recreation of this article but that shouldn't stop its deletion today for lacking WP:SIGCOV. Liz Read! Talk! 04:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ezra Bayda

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

I noticed edit wars around this article and some possible COI issues and sock puppet blocking around this subject. Seems like one sock has been enthusiastic about creating this article and making sure it stays one way, versus the other. It stood out to me, and made me dig deeper. I don't think this subject meets WP:GNG nor WP:NAUTHOR.

Tricycle is a well known publication in the field, but, it seems to be the only one that covers this subject at all. That's not multiple reliable sources, that's just one. Everything else are passing mentions or primary sources - bios about him or passing mentions in books.

I believe the subject fails to meet our notability guidelines. But, as always, perhaps others can prove me wrong and establish in sourcing that this subject merits inclusion in Wikipedia for WP:GNG and/or WP:NAUTHOR.

Thanks for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Buddhism, and New Jersey. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Has a few paragraphs for book reviews in Publisher's Weekly [42], so just barely passes AUTHOR. The New York Journal of Books [43]] has another review, website looks like a wix site though... Lots of press on the lawsuit, I guess he got too touchy-feely with certain individuals. Oaktree b (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Publisher's Weekly literally reviews everything that is submitted, so, I'd consider it a pretty weak source and used sparingly. It doesn't really establish notability. I can submit my own book (which I've yet to write, lol) and they'd review it. FYI the New York Journal of Books is not a reliable source. It's just a personal blog about books. Missvain (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is something in Proquest (paywalled/work won't let me view it) [44] and he's quoted over three paragraphs here: [45] with a full text of the paper here [46]. Oaktree b (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to access the ProQuest article through my university. It appears to be a review of an edited collection which Bayda contributed to. Here is that book via Google. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is some coverage, but not enough to meet WP:GNG. The mentions in the John Welwood and Pema Chödrön books are trivial mentions, and the only third-party source that mentions him with any significance is Tricycle discussing his lawsuit. He's got books and has written in compilations, but none of those are independent sources. If we were just looking at WP:GNG then he would fail, as it requires multiple third-party sources that are independent of the subject, and Tricycle is only one such reference; there are not multiple sources that meet that description. Being known in a reliable source only for a lawsuit where you've been accused of sexual abuse isn't great look when viewed through the lens of WP:BLP, and would fall under WP:BLP1E. I don't think WP:CRIME applies since he was not criminally charged and the accusation is via a civil lawsuit. Per WP:BLPCRIME, having a Wikipedia article associating him with sexual abuse when he wasn't convicted of such seems to skirt the wrong side of WP:BLPCRIME, even if the fact that the lawsuit took place and was settled is verifiable, it still creates an implication. The BLP issues combined with the lack of third-party sources means that we really should not have an article on this individual. - Aoidh (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - FYI: A user self-identifying as Erza Bayda commented on the talk page today stating they want the article deleted. Missvain (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also note, the user claiming to be the subject removed the crime/lawsuit related content on the article. It has since been returned and I have protected the article to allow for reviewers to continue to examine the article without interruption. Missvain (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I came expecting to "keep" (and the subject wanting it deleted has no bearing on my opinion here), but the sources aren't reliable and independent. I'm shocked it's lasted this long. Book reviews from companies selling the books, passing mentions that aren't WP:SIGCOV, etc. The way the sources are padded, it looks like a paid article, but the history doesn't really look that way. He simply doesn't pass the criteria for inclusion, as a bunch of passing mentions of your name doesn't pass WP:GNG. He's published plenty, but with so much out there, if someone was going to notice, they would have by now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Enrique Barza

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

According to the article and its sports-reference source (here), Barza participated in the Olympics twice, in 1968 with Men's Foil Individual fencing and in 1972 with Men's Sabre Individual fencing. However, when I access the full results on Olympics' official website, I can't find Barza among the participants (1968 and 1972). The only mention of Barza is over at IMDb (unreliable per WP:IMDB) stating that he appeared in a film called "Munich 1972: Games of the XX Olympiad" as the Peruvian flagbear, and corroborating the article's other facts, such as Barza's birthday. As all claims of the article are either unverifiable or sourced to an unreliable source, I propose deleting this page so that we can remove the claims, deletion being the only way to do so as the claims has stayed roughly the same since its creation. Thank you. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Barza's surname is also spelt "Barúa". However, I cannot find a Barua at the Olympic website either. Thanks. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 16:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Olympics website does not directly bring you to the fencing article. Instead, choose "Fencing" from the list of sport, then the event from the drop-down menu on its right. Separately, a Google search does not turn up any Barza or Barua results unrelated to Wikipedia. NotReallyMoniak (talk) 16:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Colombo

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

Non notable scientist and political candidate. He doesn't meet WP:PROF--he has only a Master's degree and almost no publications. He doesnt meet POLITICIAN as he has not yet been elected to any office. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adebimpe omo oba

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

The references are about the producer , not the film. No other apparent evidence for `notability DGG ( talk ) 15:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 12:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 anyone is interested in working on this in draftspace, I will be happy to provide a copy. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Watling Academy

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Sources are all routine local coverage for a secondary school. MB 00:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and England. MB 00:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom. Sources are unlikely to exist for a school that has only existed for two years. Scorpions13256 (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This school is on target to have 1,700 pupils within four years and become the largest in the Borough of Milton Keynes. While it may well be true that it does not quite meet GNG today, there can be no doubt that it will become so. The nomination is precipitate. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep independently sourced, clearly a significant institution within the Milton Keynes area. This reductionist attitude only serves to diminish Wikipedia, not expand it...Bleaney (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Currently, except for the one MKFM source that could easily be replaced sometime in the future, there are nearly as many reliable sources as in the articles for The Radcliffe School and Ousedale School (two other local schools), and the missing objectives of the WP:GNG will almost certainly be fulfilled, and is likely to be soon due to the fact that 2 years have already passed, and the population of this area of MK is growing rapidly, and we should expect the school to follow suit. For the reasons above, and for consistency with secondary schools across the Borough of Milton Keynes, IMO there is absolutely no practical reason as to why this article should be removed now, only for it likely to be reinstated in the near or not-to-distant future, and as others have mentioned, removing this article from Wikipedia will do nothing but remove potentially useful information (however small it may be for a time), and so it defeats the purpose of this platform which is, per WP:About, a source of information on all branches of knowledge. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Referring to the state of other articles is not a valid reason to keep as WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. No matter how likely something is doesn't mean it's not WP:TOOSOON as per WP:CRYSTAL. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sources in this article don't seem to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NORG to establish the notability of the school at this time. (Note that the future potential notability of the school is irrelevant in determining whether this article should exist today. If the school becomes notable in the future, the article can be easily restored.) Per WP:AUD (a sub-section on WP:NORG), "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." That requirement has clearly not been satisifed here. Of the three sources in the article currently:
    1. Relatively significant coverage of the school, but in a very local publication. Additionally, this reads like a press release that was probably prepared by the Milton Keynes Council. You can find very similar press releases published in other places about other schools in the area that were built by Milton Keynes Council over the years, like these: [47][48][49][50]. Note the same structure in each article, with extended quotes by various staff, followed by the same tag-line at the end of each article: "Milton Keynes Council has committed to ensuring there is a good school place ready for every child."
    2. Another press release published on the website of a local radio station. The same extended quote structure has been employed.
    3. Broken link to a page on www.milton-keynes.gov.uk. It doesn't matter what the link was, because it would have been a primary source anyway, which is ineligible to be used for the purposes of establishing notability.
—⁠ScottyWong⁠— 23:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 15:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify seems reasonable. It's not worth trying to summarise data when there's only one data-source to summarise (all the existing citations obviously come from the same press release) - our readers might just as well read the original. Nothing to write about now, but it will probably become notable in the future. Elemimele (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG or WP:NORG at the moment. Maybe somewhere in the future but now it is just routine covering. Being new or existing does not make a school notable The Banner talk 18:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even though WP:ORG says at the very top of the guideline, The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, (italics mine) the article still needs to meet GNG. The GNG guideline, WP:SUSTAINED, says "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time." Even after I added a few facts and sources, I don't find the sustained criterion to be met, and it's a case of WP:TOOSOON. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 08:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revenants in fiction

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a pure example farm that is almost entirely original research. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lisa's Belly. Liz Read! Talk! 03:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Sage

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

The article is about a character that seemingly only had a major role in one episode, and since all sources are about a single attribute of her character, I would say this is as close to a case of WP:ONEEVENT that a fictional character could reach. As for alternatives, a redirection to List of The Simpsons characters or List of recurring The Simpsons characters would be fine. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 editors want to create a redirect from this title, they should feel free to do so. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

R/fuckcars

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

The CNet article is substantial, but the remainder are very passing mentions and Gnews didn't give any better results. Doesn't seem notable, perhaps can be redirected somewhere, but unclear what (if anything) would be a useful target. Fram (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the redirect idea. I think the CNet article is enough to warrant a mention at the target you chose. And in my mind the existence of articles for other subreddits refutes the idea that 'social media groups' are not notable and are always promotional. But I also feel fine with the thing being deleted. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present). There is consensus here that the subject is covered in multiple, independent reliable sources. The issue of contention is whether the event will be of lasting interest (per WP:LASTING etc.) or whether the existing coverage is merely part of the rolling news cycle. There are no compelling arguments in the discussion to suggest this is any more than a standalone one-off event, or has any more significance than the other article-less entries at List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2020–present).

AfD is not a referendum but for those interested there are 5 keep !votes to 8 delete/merge !votes (not including the nomination itself) so either way the outcome is the same. WaggersTALK 13:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Pakistan Army helicopter incident

2022 Pakistan Army helicopter incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article that was sent to draft during NPP and it was resubmitted via AFC and immediately accepted. This should be deleted for several reasons, WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS - we do not know if it will have WP:GEOSCOPE or will be WP:LASTING. Bruxton (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems like a notable, newsworthy event that is already attracting international attention. It has been reviewed as per the AfC process. Local and international news that suggests WP:GNG compliance to me:
  1. https://www.dawn.com/news/1702847
  2. https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/pakistan-says-army-general-5-others-die-in-helicopter-crash-1.6010673
  3. https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/pakistan-army-chopper-with-senior-military-officials-onbaord-goes-missing-balochistan-1982604-2022-08-01
  4. https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-army-helicopter-missing-with-general-on-board/a-62678255 CT55555 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Notability (events) has the additional requirement of WP:LASTING RS interest or effects beyond the breaking news cycle. Military aviation accidents don't generally get this. Hence the nominator's WP:TOOSOON rationale at best. Again, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am aware of WP:EVENT and it has informed my !vote. The lasting of coverage is impossible to know at this time. If you wanted me to absolutely focus on that part of the criteria, I would say it's too soon to delete. But I prefer to !vote based on all of the criteria, which includes WP:GEOSCOPE is, which is why I shared German, Indian and Canadian news. I don't understand why you said "again" because usually that implies that you needed to repeat something because someone wasn't listening, but this seems like your first comment here. If time passes and there is not lasting coverage, then I'd support deletion then. Until then, I see it like this:
    1. Notability checkY
    2. International attention checkY
    3. Lasting coverage Question? CT55555 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555: No way to determine lasting when it happened yesterday. Exactly why I sent it to draft. The editor who moved it from draft should have waited. I checked their contributions and article creation and I was concerned. This is simply news, not encyclopedic content and there is WP:NORUSH. Bruxton (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ElderZamzam, I would like to point out Sarfraz Ali (Pakistan Army officer) was created the day after this article (crash). The crash gave him notability for an article, so saying a victim has an article gives extra notability to the crash article does not really work in this situation. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 do not believe a third relist is likely to get closer to a consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamdy El-Said

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

Fails WP:NMMA and WP:NOLY. His highest ranking by Fight Matrix is 104th in the world heavyweight rankings, which is not even close to the top 10 requirement. He also failed to win a medal in his appearance at the 2016 Summer Olympics, having been eliminated in round 16. ♡RAFAEL♡(talk) 13:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He fails WP:NMMA, WP:NSPORT, and WP:MANOTE. He lost his first match at the Olympics and doesn't appear to have ever competed at an adult world championship event. The articles I found, including those in the article and the ones mentioned by TheCatalyst31, were about his loss at the Rio Olympics, his signing of a UFC contract, and at least three heralding the fact he was the first Egyptian to win a UFC fight. I don't think that coverage is significant enough to meet WP:GNG. At best I'd say it's WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I'd say the articles linked by TheCatalyst31 just get him over the GNG bar. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in light of new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh mythology in the arts and popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic may be notable, but what we have here is a 99% unreferenced (two footnotes) list of media in which Welsh mythology topics appeared in. This fails WP:OR/WP:V as a potential article, WP:IPC as well, and likely WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. For an example of how messy this is, note a bunch of examples of "media (novels, movies) in which characters have names based on Welsh mythos characters", where said media has no other connection to Welsh mythology (and where it's just some random editor's assumption that the name is indeed inspired by Welsh mythology and not some other use or is just a coincidence). It's like someone would populate the Slavic mythology in popular culture with lists of media in which characters have Slavic names... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 12:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Server.com

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

Server.com is a defunct (1996-2007) SaaS provider. It has sources, but lacks clear notability. It's borderline, as noted by User:MarioGom reviewing earlier but ultimately the company fails WP:GNG, WP:OPGCRIT. Note the more stringent requirement for notability under NORG, "a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules" - so parsing out company announcements, company influenced coverage, releases etc... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The sources in the article easily satisfy WP:3REFS-
– Sean Brunnock (talk) 09:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ASTIG️🙃 (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 11:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 21:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fawaz Awana

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

Does not appear to be a notable association footballer, from an extensive search the only potential source I could find was this, which despite the title only mentions him in passing. Seemingly a WP:GNG failure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, These sources show he is notable in United Arab Emirates: [60], , [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], and [69], among many many other sources about him not listed here. On top of that, the UAE's Arabic newspapers emaratalyoum.com, albayan.ae, alkhaleej.ae, alittihad.ae, alroeya.com etc all have 2+ Google search pages worth of articles specifically about him. Not to mention websites like 24.ae, aawsat.com, dubaisports.ae, elsports.com, thenationalnews.com, khaleejtimes.com, gulfnews.com, YouTube, youm7.com, etc. He is clearly a significant figure in UAE football. In addition, he is am international capped player with over 100 pro appearances with an ongoing fully pro career where he is captain of his club team. I look at the other Sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 10. By the time I finish writing this, another ten will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't read Arabic and Google Translate only takes me so far - please summaries their content. GiantSnowman 17:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman:, 9 is an English interview article and the rest are interviews in Arabic about different topics. Keep in mind these sources are just a few examples and there are many many other sources about him not listed here from dubaisports.ae, youm7.com. 24.ae, aawsat.com, emaratalyoum.com, elsports.com alroeya.com, albayan.ae, khaleejtimes.com, gulfnews.com, thenationalnews.com, etc. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cited coverage by Das above is nothing but a collection of interviews, the articles quite literally consist in their entirety of quotes from the subject with no independent journalism present. Still no secondary coverage, still a clear WP:GNG failure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @GiantSnowman: , Besides the sources provided, some additional sources about him that do not have any quotes from him, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 , among many many other sources that do not have quotes from him not listed here show he is notable in United Arab Emirates. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

International Kickboxing Federation

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

Fails GNG Zafir94 (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTEMPORARY is irrelevant to my comment. The fact that it was previously PRODed speaks to the fact that its WP notability has always been questionable. As a long time martial artist, I was merely giving some background information. The fact that it's never met WP:GNG is a fact and a definite problem. Papaursa (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Newspapers.com search finds 234 mentions of "International Kickboxing Federation" in the 2000s, 40 in the 2010s and 1 so far this decade. So clearly, as you've said, it has peaked. WP:NOTTEMPORARY asks us to think about how this discussion would have gone if we were holding it 20 years ago. If we would have found it notable back then, it remains notable today. ~Kvng (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My experience with the IKF goes back 20+ years, but that was before I ever heard of WP. What I remember is coverage of events and individual competitors and not significant independent coverage of the organization itself. However, doesn't mean it wasn't there and if you find some please let me know and I'll change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed a selection of the Newspapers.com results and found it to be as you say, all about events and competitors. I didn't find significant coverage of the organization. ~Kvng (talk) 01:49, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking. I guess my memory isn't totally shot. Papaursa (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's part of the kickboxing history in the United States and the world. Just because it's not major anymore like WAKO, WKN, WKA, WBC Muaythai, don't forget it was! And as a user I always want to read about kickboxing history. IKF aren't trash. Zbreller (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zbreller can you suggest any reliable sources for kickboxing history that have covered IKF? ~Kvng (talk) 13:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a niche sport and so we're going to find sources in niche publications. I've added a few links to Google Books sources. There are a lot of mentions in a lot of publications which indicate that the IKF is/was one of the biggest orgs for this sport. So far though, I'm still looking for something that will pass WP:NORG. I suggest that we'll find such material in a "History of" type book - can anyone more knowledgeable track something down? I'm deffo leaning towards a weak Keep at least on this. HighKing++ 20:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this has been relisted several times already so we need to close the discussion conclusively. Personally I find the nominator's rationale and rebuffs compelling, but there just isn't a strong enough consensus in this discussion to warrant deletion at this time. WaggersTALK 14:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Kuwata

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

Now this is, I promise, an interesting one. Refbombed with fully 28 references, this article is of a Japanese media personality, model, and musician. The references are mostly in Japanese. Translated, they often namecheck the subject as the son of his famous baseball player father Masumi. They are almost all trivial to an almost exquisite degree. The subject's main claim to fame and notability seems to boil down to the fact that he looks, well, odd. As a media personality, model and musician he appears overwhelmingly trivial. He has appeared in some TV commercials, a web campaign for insect repellent and as a beauty ambassador for AvanTime Tone Shot Cream. With 28 references, it's almost impossible that someone won't argue that he passes WP:GNG. And yet they all amount to absolutely no substance and, as far as I can see, no evidence of notability - typical is 'news' pieces noting an Instagram post where Kuwata thanks his brother or father for their birthday greetings. Does 28 pieces of bellybutton fluff equate to "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent"??? You tell me... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your quick look is too quick. All of those Oricon "articles" are brief publicity announcements that repeat social media posts. Via Google Translate, there is one that announces a change to his Instagram in which he commented on that day's makeup (2022-06-16), one announcing that he will appear at an online event in which he will discuss makeup (2022-03-24), one about what makeup he was wearing when he appeared onstage at an event (2022-02-21) blah blah blah. Not even close to Wikipedia's standards for significant coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Good luck to him as he figures out a way to make an honest living as a social media influencer. The nominator is correct on the absence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Social media posts and publicity announcements about social media posts won't cut it. This article is simply a repeat of the promotional puff pieces already plastered around the Internet by his publicist. Dude has unique facial structure though. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:45, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appear mostly name drops/he's related to xyz person articles, based on analysis above. Oaktree b (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe I haven't done the best job of showing it, but the guy is definitely notable and relevant. Ads with his face are everywhere from department store walls to point of sale displays. If you search for just マット (Matt, no surname),　he's the only human being that comes up (the other front page results are all floor mats). I haven't been checking print sources lately; I'm sure there's something better than what I found online. I don't think simply being known for a family connection should be grounds to delete, otherwise there wouldn't be articles about anyone in the Kardashian family. Londonbeat41692 (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For more context, I just added a reference to an interview of him that was featured in Harper's Bazaar. He was also the subject of a GQ photoshoot with a long article. Londonbeat41692 (talk) 10:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have time to add it right now, but I just searched for updates and found he recently did a feature for Vogue Japan as well, and also is launching a makeup line which was covered in reputable media. None of it is about SNS or his family, or simply "looking odd". I will continue to improve the article as time permits; please give it a chance. Londonbeat41692 (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Has significant coverage of himself, not his father, for example in English: [70], [71], [72] covering his doll-like / mannequin-like modelling. There are significantly more sources in Japanese asw well as other languages. Fulmard (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of sources mentioned in later comments
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 08:33, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm certain I've never before used the reason for my assertion as "per nom" but in this case the nominator has made a compelling case regarding source analysis. The subject is a mildly successful self-promoter. No claim of significance or importance. Nothing significant in presented sources which directly details. I find no fault with the assertions User:Alexandermcnabb makes above, except this: In my AfD experience, I have often seen "28 pieces of bellybutton fluff" misconstrued as cumulatively meeting a threshold of GNG. I can't see any reason this subject will mature into notability, but occasionally Wikipedia gives popular culture a bizarre pass. BusterD (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain why you feel that full-length features in GQ, Vogue, and Harper's Bazaar (which are not about his father or SNS activity) are "bellybutton fluff". Some of the references might not be great, but others such as those are pretty significant.Londonbeat41692 (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Page creator User:Londonbeat41692's "...full-length features in GQ, Vogue, and Harper's Bazaar..." simply don't exist. 1) These are not full length features; they are interviews, photoshoots and YouTube videos, none of which establish notability. 2) The subject aspires to be a model. Appearing in such material is literally his job. He doesn't appear to be notable among Japanese fashion models, much less models getting full-length features in "GQ, Vogue, and Harper's Bazaar". 3) He seems to have gathered no cultural resonance in the English-speaking world up to this point. He seems to be a minor popular culture figure weakly covered by Japanese media primarily because of his father and his physical appearance, based on presented and found sources. BusterD (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I already voted above, but would like to emphasize the point that appearing in a major magazine as a model is not the same as having a reliable source publish an in-depth and significant article that is about that model. The second of those is required for notability in Wikipedia. Meanwhile, some of the "keep" voters have dug up more sources, but they continue to be puff pieces and softball interviews from outlets that merely forward a publicist's promo announcements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The articles in the magazines I mentioned are about the model. Please look at the references again. They are not simply photos in which he appears, although those were taken for the magazine articles in question as well. Londonbeat41692 (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Srikanth Vissa

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

Telugu scriptwriter, fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:GNG to boot. No significant coverage presented, commentary on film director in interviews, news pieces about trailers dropping, incidental mentions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gualtiero Zanolini

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, lack of WP:SIGCOV. World Scout Committee member does not amount to much. 1 pageview (30 days) for a BLP is very low. Edwardx (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 00:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huqooq-e-Sindh March

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

A march apparently held in March. Has not resulted in any enduring consequence or change to Pakistani politics or society. Perhaps a brief note in the Sindh Government article, but this article is wholly WP:UNDUE and fails WP:GNG and WP:LASTING. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nadežda Pavlović

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

Per Wikipedia:BLP1E and/or WP:NOPAGE. She was not even supercentenarian (person who is/was aged 110+). In fact, she was only 109 years and 3 months old. Also, the author of this article seems to have determined that she is a or "was the oldest known living person in Serbia" recognized by an organization called ESO, but I don't think ESO is an internationally recognized and prestigious longevity science organization, unlike Gerontology Research Group. More famous and prominent articles about the oldest people, the country's oldest person titieholder, have also been deleted in the past like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misao Okawa (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukichi Chuganji (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamie Eva Keith (2nd nomination), etc. There is no reason to keep only this article of the oldest person in a small country like Serbia, when considering impartiality...--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Hertweck

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

No evidence of any notability. Very few passing mentions in GNews[73], nothing useful in generic Google[74], no attention for his career so far. Fram (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 13:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo Puglisi

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

Not enough WP:SIGCOV to justify having an article on a minor, particularly given this has already been subject to significant vandalism ITBF (talk) 10:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

History of rugby union matches between Japan and the United States

History of rugby union matches between Japan and the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No clear rivalry between the two countries, basically a list of matches and fails WP:NOTSTATS Bcp67 (talk) 10:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Eugene Vaughan

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

Sources are thinly veiled advertorials for Vaughn and his company, Vonski Travels. Not seeing any evidence of significant coverage in RS independent of the subject KH-1 (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 concerns about OR haven’t been addressed to the point where we clearly can save this and plenty of editors have concerns that there is too much OR to rescue this. On that basis this clearly must go but I do endorse the suggestion to have a discussion on how best to discuss this subject but any recreation really oughtto be based on academic sources to avoid further OR concerns Spartaz Humbug! 07:36, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lowland Scots people

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

Leans very heavy on Gaels. Does not seem realistic to have this article on its own. The Banner talk 10:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. When one searches for "Lowland Scot" on google search, google books, and newspapers.com, there is a plethora of sources. While the newspaper search is somewhat complicated by the appearance in the search of a racehorse by that name, there were many articles that clearly discuss Lowland Scots People, including [81]. Without going into listing all of them, there are already a large number of high-quality references, including several books by authors who have their own articles and at least one of which includes the term in the title. Many of these have been added to the article in the last couple of days. In any case, the article is currently well-referenced with plenty of significant coverage to meet the general notability guideline with ease. Jacona (talk) 13:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd agree that the article has the strong air of a thesis about it and seems to be advancing sources somewhat partially to support the author's personal POV, particularly as presented in the lede versus the main body. For example the Lowland_Scots_people#Lowlander_ethnic_group_formation gives, to some extent, a diversity of views as to origins but the first paragraph is categorical. There are other statements which just seem simplistic or plain wrong, such as the subjects "speak the Scots language": very many of course do, most, to some extent, on the dialect continuum but it is wrong to note it as a necessary or defining characteristic. This may be largely stylistic but the article's framing of its content by mustering which academic authority has stated what gives the article the qualities of the advancement of a case. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I got into a substantial discussion at the matching AfD for Scots Gaelic people which is closely related to this. The subject is obviously notable. The real issue is how to distribute the material between different articles. We could deal with the whole thing at Scottish people, but that article is already long. Scots Gaelic people ran into a perfectly reasonable argument from Akerbeltz that there is no distinction between Scots Gaels and Gaels in general, who already have an article, so Scots-Gaels as an article shouldn't exist; but this would remove the other half of the two articles currently covering the major Scots peoples; but that was also a bone of contention at Scots Gaelic people, about distinctions between Highland Scots and Gaelic Scots, distinctions lost in the current arrangement of articles. I am not in favour of deleting any of the current information in any of these articles, except where it can be shown to be inaccurate (in which cases it should be edited as normal). I am not opposed to some massive restructuring, but I'm not going to try to oblige someone to do the restructuring work, and I'm not sure AfD is the best place to suggest restructuring that doesn't actually involve deleting anything complete (the situation is too complex). Somehow we need to find a way to discuss the various Scottish people without grouping them inappropriately. Elemimele (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as the topic is clearly notable (per Jacona) and therefore should have an article. There is plenty of room for improvement (especially when considered with the other related peoples articles), but that is no reason for deletion. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 13:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to Delete: Lowlanders as a group of people is better covered in Scottish people and there is no content worth saving from the article as written (currently consists of unsaveable original research, deleteable per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:DEL-REASON#6). I'm also beginning to doubt notability after thinking about WP:SIGCOV a little more becuase I'm not seeing enough significant coverage to make an article larger than a short paragraph without needing to do at least some WP:OR. See discussion below. In addition, I'm not sure how it could be redirected as a subsection of Scottish people as an WP:ATD-R right now. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 16:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete the topic is more adequately treated under Scottish people. This page reads like some heavily biased opinion piece that is riddled with inaccuracies. The whole concept of trying to establish Scots and Lowland Scots as two distinct ethnic groups seems so fundamentally flawed in the first place that such a page would need really broad consensus and seriously reliable sources, otherwise it smacks of someone with an agenda trying to cultivate a split that doesn't exist. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Akerbeltz: Looking at Scottish people#Constructs of a unitary ethnicity, especially the paragraph starting with "In 2014", the groups are distinct in that one is a subgroup of another or something similar (there are references to back that up). If there is a practical and useful way to merge useful content to the Scottish people article and treat the topic there while redirecting the page title to where its covered, I like the sound of that. However, I'm not aware of such a way. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 15:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Akerbeltz and my previous comments. The existence of separate articles on supposed neatly distinct Scots Gaelic and Lowland Scots ethnic groups, outwith the naturally encompassing Scottish people article, promotes an OR proposal. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The most cursory of Google searches for "Lowland and Highland Scots" produces an enormous number of relevant hits.[82], [83], [84] etc. etc. etc.; We have to deal with this. I have no problem with getting rid of this article, but we can't get rid of it by ignoring centuries of sourcing and pretending that no one has ever proposed that lowland and highland scots are two different groups. The question of how this divide was balanced against the feeling of unity of one country is a part of Scottish history, isn't it? Wikipedia is here to say what sources have said, across centuries, not to say what we think the situation ought to be, no matter how much we hate artificial divides (I personally loathe articles that get hooked up on ethnicity). Elemimele (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OR defines itself: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." There are lots of sources (including 34 in the article), so while not everyone likes the article, it is clearly not OR. Jacona (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That "Wikipedia is here to say what sources have said" is the very point. These articles indeed brandish copious sources but the impression is given of a partial emphasis and of a synthesis to present an original thesis - Wikipedia is very much not here to do that, either in distinct articles or merged into an all-encomapssing one. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can we say this article is synthesis without also addressing Scottish_people#Constructs of a unitary ethnicity which appears to say, in the voice of several recent historians, precisely what we wish to deny here? I am becoming thoroughly confused. Elemimele (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the n-th time, yes, there is the concept of a Highlander/Lowlander and the Highlands/Lowlands. Nobody is denying that. But that's more of a geographic decriptor, not ethnic divide, certainly not in the 21st century. Secondly, yes, the article has a lot of references, but they don't necessarily actually back up the point the page author is trying to make. Just because a source says there are/were Highlanders and Lowlanders does NOT mean the source is stating they were distinct ethnicities. The whole thing is murky because (ignoring fairly clear-cut cases such as the Norse), many Scots-speaking Lowlanders are/were simply Gaelic speakers who had been linguistically assimilated n generations back. That changed the language they spoke, but does it change the ethnicity? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My position (as of whenever I hit the "publish" button) is that the topic is notable and should be covered somewhere, but the article does seem to be making a case (OR) for the author's POV. Mutt Lunker identified several problems with the text in their fist comment, and I do think they are probably right. I may change my mind as I edit the article, though. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 17:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Akerbeltz, here's a quote from Steven Danver, taken from the Scottish people article: "The people of Scotland are divided into two groups - Lowland Scots in the southern part of the country and Highland Scots in the north - that differ from one another ethnically, culturally, and linguistically". You can argue he's wrong, or writing about a past that no longer exists, but you cannot argue that he never intended to imply that the lowland and highland Scotts were distinct ethnicities. He couldn't have said it more clearly. Elemimele (talk) 21:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Scottish people article brings the issue of 'when' into discussion, quote in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A lot of this stuff is not necessarily written by subject specialists. Danver may be tops when it comes to Native Americans, but a lot of the section on 'Highland Scots' reads like it was speedily researched and is full of errors. For example, his geographic placement of Gaelic-speakers as 'Northern' totally ignores Argyll, his figures for Candian Gaelic speakers conflate those of native speakers and learners of varying ability, he claims Gaelic is used as a medium of instruction in bilingual primary schools only (wrong, there are Gaelic-medium secondaries)... and that's just at a cursory glance. That's generally a problem when subject specialists try to branch out to do a 'global atlas of x', they have to condense material from other sources and that is risky. I'm not sure this particular publication by Danver counts as a totally reliable source.

Often these statements are also recursive in that some folk look at who speaks/spoke what language and immediately assume that speaking A means descent from Group A and speaking B from Group B. But that's categorically not the case. In genetic terms, only the borders strongly pattern with genetic descent from Northern Anglo-Saxon groups, the rest of Scotland is a mix of Goidelic, Pictish and Norse groupings, see this research from Edinburgh Uni. What languages Scots in 2020 or indeed in 1820 speak or spoke seems to have realatively little to do with actual descent. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Akerbeltz, you're bludgeoning and verging on triggering me to an ANI complaint. You can't just write off any source you don't like as unreliable, not without offering some published sources that actually support your point of view (the article you've just cited is about race and genetics, not ethnicity as defined by common culture etc., and it certainly doesn't argue for an undivided Scottish people). If you don't think Danver's right, get your own work published to refute him, and then we can cite it here. But we can't reject him (and many, many others) simply because you don't like what he's saying. Further, it doesn't matter if the division ceased to exist after the 19th Century. That doesn't mean it isn't worth writing about. We just need to say that it's a historical divide that no longer exists. Overall, this is not the way to handle an AfD. To be honest, I'm beginning to feel I've run into something political here, which is making me feel very uncomfortable. Elemimele (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Report away. And it works the other way round, there is no assumption that anything published out there is reliable, there's simply too much rubbish that nobody has the time to refute. The onus is on us to determine if a source is reliable or not. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, lifted a rock ... the Lowland Scots article was apparently written by one Harald Haarmann, who is a prolific writer and - according to the German Wiki page a major proponent of the non mainstream Danubian culture theory. I make no claims about having insights into his academic credentials overall but when someone is a proponent of a non-mainstream controverisal theory, it's at least a question mark. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sick to death of this. Have it your own way. Elemimele (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how having a non-mainstream view on a completely unrelated topic to lowland scots influences his reliability; he is a cultural scientist with a PhD. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 15:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm astonished at the resort to accusations of bludgeoning in regard to perfectly reasonable, measured and necessary querying of sources and of their application. In regard to running into something political, that's the very sense I got on encountering the two articles. I don't know whose politics they might serve as they contain elements that could be seen to serve conflicting interests but there is a distinct air of pointiness about them. I'm glad to see they are not being accepted at face value and with the provision of substance to those doubts. I would hope the accuser might reflect. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All the arguments for delete don't seem to be based on real reasons to delete, one variation or another of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If the article "reads like a thesis" but has plenty of sources, improve it. If the article has some WP:OR, but has plenty of WP:RS, remove the OR and replace it with sourced content. There are plenty of references to establish WP:N, WP:SIGCOV, whether a particular editor likes the article as written or not should not be the issue. Jacona (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) - now questioning the reliability, or misuse of, sources is IDONTLIKEIT? The removal of OR is not reliant on something being put in its place. If it's OR, it goes. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about bludgeoning. I didn't say anything about keeping OR. I'm sorry, but I don't understand why you're saying this to me. Jacona (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacona: It seems like @Mutt Lunker accidentally put their reply to Elemimele in the wrong place due to the edit conflict, I've moved it above your comment where it belongs. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 15:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to User:Danre98 for moving User:Matt Lunker's misplaced response.... As far as IDONTLIKEIT, my point is that those in favor of deletion's arguments are not about notability, but about the content of the article. While there may well be problems with the article in terms of WP:NPOV and WP:OR, there's really not any doubt that sources exist, some already in the article and many more available on the internet and newspapers.com. The issues with article content are reasons to improve the article, not reasons to delete it. Jacona (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The case for deletion is plainly not just about content but, again, as to whether it is appropriate to cover this as a distinct article, rather than within the Scottish people article. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After spending plenty of time thinking about it and time editing the article (removing OR I find as I repeatedly read it and there's a lot more I could have justifiably removed), I'm convinced that this article consists of enough WP:OR that the idea of a Lowland Scots People (as the author has written it) is origninal research, one of the things Wikipedia is not and is also WP:DEL-REASON#6. The original research is pervasive across the page, too. The topic is likely notable imo, but it requires WP:TNT (and the newspaper article might be a good place to start). I won't change my !vote because I believe that a (likely stub) rewrite should happen as opposed to deletion (or adding information to Scottish people); I might try to do it myself soon. The content of the article is irreparable, in my opinion. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 17:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I could be swayed into supporting a stub, provided the stubs (of course supported by refs) makes it clear this is a complex issue and not a simple case of Highland/Gael vs Lowland/Germanic Scots. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm still of the view that this would be better dealt with under Scottish people and, to me, one problem of retaining this as a standalone, even purged of OR, is the name; the notion of Lowland Scots as a "people". Lowland Scots on its own could clearly be confused with Scots (language) but we'd generally just talk about Lowlanders, so, with disambiguation in brackets, would Lowlanders (Scottish) be better? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did say 'could' :) But yeah, you've touched on the problem. Is 'people' accurate and if not, then what? Again, not my area of expertise but there is a problem with Lowlander having pejorative connotations, to the extent that I can't see someone from Glasgow or Dundee standing up to say 'I'm a Lowlander'. Again, this is just my take, but most 'Lowlanders' would simply identify as 'Scots'. From my area of expertise, i.e. the Gaelic angle, the question is more about whether the identity of the Gael and Gaelic is still part of a Scottish identity or whether it has been disassociated. To put it another way, if you ask an Irish or Welsh native whether speaking Irish/Welsh and Irish/Welsh 'Celtic' culture is part and parcel of an Irish/Welsh identity, most would say yes, even if they don't speak it and don't play a harp (joke). But ask the same question in Scotland, you get a very complicated answer and while many if not most are broadly tolerant of Gaelic and Gaeldom these days, they don't see it as part of their own identity much. I think there are relatively few recent sources talking about Highlanders/Lowlanders are separate ethnicites because by and large, whatever the original identity of the Lowlander, this has been largely merged with that of being a Scot. Personally I've always felt that having the Scottish people page and the page on Gaels was adequate to cover this complicated issue as elegantly as possible. There's a page which is currently a redirect Highland-Lowland divide, maybe that could serve as a home for covering the Highland-Lowland thing beyond mere geography, without going into whether people still call themselves Lowlanders? At the moment it leads to Geography of Scotland, which talks about the Highland Boundary Fault but the cultural Highland line was never as clear cut as the geographic one. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After reading [85] and mulling over the newspaper article Jacona shared, both of which seems to give more coverage about Ulster Scots people than lowlanders of which coverage is negligible, I've come to the conclusion that any coverage should happen in Scottish people because it would be better covered there in that context, perhaps somewhere in the section Scottish ethnic and cultural groups. Even if a standalone article is appropriate, something with "lowlanders" in the title is probably more appropriate (like Mutt Lunker's suggestion), so there may be no reason to keep the article even after a TNT. I've updated my reccomendation above and struck part of my cmt above. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 16:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have a feeling this dispute may be best served by a centralized discussion, possibly at Talk:Scottish people, that addressed how to distribute this content; however, perhaps another week here will establish some consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 11:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 13:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jelisaveta Veljkovic

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

Per Wikipedia:BLP1E and/or WP:NOPAGE. Also, the author of this article seems to have determined that she is a or "was the oldest known living person in Serbia" or "Supercentenarian" recognized by an organization called ESO, but I don't think ESO is an internationally recognized and prestigious longevity science organization, unlike Gerontology Research Group. More famous and prominent articles about the oldest people, the country's oldest person titieholder, have also been deleted in the past like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misao Okawa (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukichi Chuganji (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamie Eva Keith (2nd nomination), etc. There is no reason to keep only this article of the oldest person in a small country like Serbia, when considering impartiality...--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 10:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Darinka Jandrić

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

Per Wikipedia:BLP1E and/or WP:NOPAGE. She was not even supercentenarian (person who is/was aged 110+). In fact, she was only 108 years and one month old. Also, the author of this article seems to have determined that she is a or "was the oldest known living person in Serbia" recognized by an organization called ESO, but I don't think ESO is an internationally recognized and prestigious longevity science organization, unlike Gerontology Research Group. More famous and prominent articles about the oldest people, the country's oldest person titieholder, have also been deleted in the past like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misao Okawa (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukichi Chuganji (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamie Eva Keith (2nd nomination), etc. There is no reason to keep only this article of the oldest person in a small country like Serbia, when considering impartiality...--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 09:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions 09:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per WP:BLP1E, "WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people". This person is not living, so that rationale is not relevant here. Jacona (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright. But I guess this article still not reach WP:GNG.--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • She is known for several other things. THE POINT OF THE ARTICLE IS NOT THAT SHE WAS THE OLDEST. She was a student of World War II, a division medic, a member of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia, and above all a woman whose entire family was killed by the Ustashas. .she is not a Supercentenarian, ESO does not deal with people under 110 years of age. (Only 110+ same as GRG). She might have been the oldest in her country. But that is not important, it is important to rearrange the article.Дејан2021 (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unlike some other unverified supercentenarian articles you nominated, this person is also notable for being a World War II veteran. It could be improved and potentially expanded, of course. The List of last surviving World War II veterans does not contain any Yugoslav WWII veterans for some reason, that could be filled out. By the way, the argument "small country like Serbia" is not a great outlook, she lived most of her life in Yugoslavia, a pretty significant country back in the day. I don't think being from a "small country" is a great argument for deleting biographies anyway. Per Дејан2021 as well. -Vipz (talk) 03:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is partially fixed for now, although there may be more improvements. She was not a Supercentenarian (110+), as I said, down to the other side of her significance, other than longevity. She spent most of her life in Yugoslavia, more precisely in Belgrade, present-day Serbia. She was one of the last women veterans of the second world war, she is not the last, there are many people (95+) who are still alive, who were participants in the war II...Дејан2021 (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep'. I have no knowledge of Serbian, and am relying on google translate to read the sources in the article. They do not focus on her longevity, and are fairly detailed biographies examining her family history and survival of WWII. They are certainly substantive, and they seem decently reliable local news to an unfamiliar reader. I am not generally persuaded by longevity as a determinant of notability, but I don't think that argument is needed here. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per author request. ✗plicit 13:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Valjalo

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

Per Wikipedia:BLP1E and/or WP:NOPAGE. Also, the author of this article seems to have determined that she is a supercentenarian or "was the oldest known living person in Croatia" recognized by an organization called ESO, but I don't think ESO is an internationally recognized and prestigious longevity science organization, unlike Gerontology Research Group. More famous and prominent articles about the oldest people, the country's oldest person titieholder, have also been deleted in the past like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misao Okawa (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yukichi Chuganji (4th nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamie Eva Keith (2nd nomination), etc. There is no reason to keep only this article of the oldest person in a small country like Serbia, when considering impartiality...--Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 08:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tio Cipot

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

Fails WP:GNG, no sources were provided that would indicate significant coverage, only the regular match reports / contract extension reports Snowflake91 (talk) 09:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are routine reports like contract extensions or match reports, you can find this for literally any player that signed a pro contract with the club. Snowflake91 (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. I look at the other sports WikiProjects and they don't nearly have an article deleted per day, let alone 20. By the time I finish writing this, another twenty will probably be deleted. Article may need improvement, but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Other WikiProjects doesn't delete 20 articles per day" is not a reason for keep, and you literally copy/paste that same reply at every AfD, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pascal Estrada, but at least there you managed to provide some in-depth coverage, unlike in this article. Where is the in-depth coverage of this player that goes beyond "Tip Cipot extended his contract until 2026" and a regular match reports? Looks like people are just trying to mass-keep those poor articles because of their disagreement with the WP:NSPORTS new notability standards, so they try to provide some "in-depth" sources which in reality are just routine reports...how about you create just 1 well-written, long article with many sources per day, instead of creating 20 full-stub, half-done, one-sentence articles per day about barely notable or non-notable footballers? Snowflake91 (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scots Gaelic people

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

Recreation of a subject earlier merged in 2019 after an AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaels of Scotland) The Banner talk 09:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is hard to consider separately from Lowland_Scots_people, also up for deletion. The problem is that the Gaels article (into which the original Gaels-of-Scotland article got merged) deals with the unity of the Gaelic peoples across Ireland and into Scotland. It does not deal with the disunity of the Gaelic Scots from the Lowland Scots. But the social relationships, histories, and differences between the lowland Scots and the highland Gaelic Scots go back centuries, have been written about by so, so many; there's no question of the notability of both groups, their interactions, and their social history. The question to my mind is more whether it's appropriate to keep these two articles separate, or to have a single article dealing with the Scottish peoples and histories (across two ethnic and linguistic backgrounds), and another single article dealing with the Gaelic peoples (across multiple nations). I am not a Scottish historian, and feel the question is too big for me. I cannot support a delete; the subject is too notable, and the material in these articles too good to lose. I cannot suggest a merge or reorganisation because this is a volunteer project and it would be a truly huge amount of work for whoever picks it up. Elemimele (talk) 13:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly doesn't make sense under the name of Scots Gaelic people. I think the issue here is POV - not in the sense usually debated about on Wikipedia but in a cultural sense. By and large, looking at it from inside the Gaelic/Irish-speaking community, there are just Gaels, some of whom happen to be in Scotland, some in Ireland. If I search for Gàidheil Albannach ('Scottish Gaels') I get 297 ghits, if I search for Gàidheil ann an Alba ('Gaels in Scotland') I get over a thousand ghits, if I put in the equivalent Irish terms, its 2 vs 1610. It goes further than that. While within each country the language is referred to as Gàidhlig or Gaeilge respectively, usually when referring to the other one, people just use the same term and append the country i.e. Gàidhlig in Scotland is Scots Gaelic, but Gàidhlig na h-Èireann (Gaelic of Ireland) is 'Irish Gaelic', and vice versa. There currently is just one article for Gaels because separating the two conceptually is not easy. The least worst name would probably be Irish/Scottish Gaels, but that does not address the fact that the way the page content is written is, well, wrong. Gael ≠ Highlander, not by ANY stretch of imagination or fact. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that Irish/Scottish Gaels is a useful name because it overlaps too heavily with Gaels in total. If you exclude Gaels who've moved into the rest of the world, just as all peoples move around, there isn't much of Gaelic people that wouldn't automatically fall in Irish/Scottish Gaels. No, the lowland-highland divide is of course a generalisation that's often wrong. But it's also a generalisation that's widely found in sources. These aren't great hits because they're a bit tertiary, but Britanica clearly believes in a basic South-West to North-East divide [89], and so does this article at scarf.scot: [90]. We have to deal with what sources say, even if we think it's an oversimplification or wrong. My feeling is that AfD is not a great venue to discuss this, because it's not a matter of deleting individual articles. It's more about how do we distribute a huge mass of obviously notable material between appropriately-titled articles; it can't be dealt with at the level of individual articles in the way AfD works. It would better have been a giant request for comment across projects covering Gaelic and Scottish history. Elemimele (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
clarification: by SW to NE divide, I mean a crude line running from the SW to the NE, with the Gaelic speaking people, of Gaelic origin, to the North and West, while the Scots who spread from the South being mainly to the SE side of that line. But these lines are always rather rubbish. It's insane to think that people stay in one place, unchanged, without mixing, for centuries, and it would be very socially unhealthy if they did. Elemimele (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't get what you mean with I'm not sure that Irish/Scottish Gaels is a useful name because it overlaps too heavily with Gaels in total. If you exclude Gaels who've moved into the rest of the world, just as all peoples move around, there isn't much of Gaelic people that wouldn't automatically fall in Irish/Scottish Gaels. There are Gaels as an indigenous population in Ireland, Scotland and the Isle of Man. Yes, there's a diaspora but I don't think that's hugely relevant unless we're talking about Nova Scotia. Of course they'll overlap? I mean, it's a bit like trying to say German people is too broad and we need to split this into Low German and High German people and then argue that there's too much of an overlap? But maybe I'm just not getting what you're saying :)
That aside, going purely by the sources, Scots Gaelic people seems like a totally made up term that has no basis in the literature, excluding the Wiki page and its copies, I'm not really getting any ghits, whereas there's at least some for Irish/Scottish Gaels. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're trying to say almost the same thing. I believe there is no point in having an article on Scottish/Irish Gaels distinct from Gaels because they are the same thing. You believe, and I'm inclined to agree, that there is no point in having an article on Scottish Gaels because there really is no such thing, there are just Gaels, some of whom happen to live in Scotland, some in Ireland (and a few elsewhere). But that isn't the subject of this article. This article, and the article on the Lowland Scots, together, are actually a review of the subject of ethnicities as a whole in Scotland, and the claims of many sources that the Scottish population can be broadly separated into two general groups, those of Gaelic origin who tend to be found more to the North and West (who in many sources get referred to (conflated?) as Highlanders), and those of Southern origin who tend to be found more towards the South and the East (whom many sources refer to as Lowland Scots). I don't think it's great to have one subject split over several articles. But merely deleting this one won't make the subject go away, and it can't be merged with the existing Gaels, because that's not the right place for the subject; it would be almost like writing an article about the French and adding three paragraphs on why French isn't the same as Belgian. I'll admit though, I have a very strong dislike of articles on ethnicity and racial types; ethnicity seems to bring out the worst in human nature. Elemimele (talk) 07:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a Highlander is and what it's usual definition is. I'm not questioning that. The point is though that this article claims that Highlanders = Scots Gaelic people - something that is both wrong (there are Highlanders who are not Gaelic speakers and there are Gaelic speakers who are not Highlanders) and cannot be backed up by reliable sources. The Scarf article actually makes a different point about Gaelic and Highlanders, not the one the Wiki page is trying to make. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so let's focus on this as an AfD. If this is to close as delete, the admin who closes it is going to need some evidence. There are lots of possible reasons to get rid of the article. (1) The proposed reason, that it existed previously and got deleted. That doesn't hold much water; articles are regularly re-written, and if they're re-written with new referencing and content overcoming previous objections, they can be acceptable; an article should be judged on its merits, not on its title. (2) Because the article is basically wrong. I think this is your main concern? At the moment, the article is bristling in references, so we can't argue it's unsourced. We need either to demonstrate that the sources are bad, to prune parts that are wrong and not sourced, and to find sources that disagree with the current ones where we believe that sourced statements are biased, misleading or wrong. (3) The article isn't the best way to handle the subject. This is what I believe. I believe that the ethnic origins of the various peoples who live in Scotland is a notable subject, and can be sourced, but that it would be more helpful to have a single article on the peoples of Scotland than individual articles on particular ethnic groups, particularly as these groups are not necessarily confined to Scotland. This article already exists, at Scottish_people, which means I'm tending towards delete, with merging information to that article. I am not sufficiently aware of Scottish ethnic issues to know what information is correct and therefore mergeable. Does that make any sense? Elemimele (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(note, however, that at Scottish People we have the following sentence: "From 1500 on, Scotland was commonly divided by language into two groups of people, Gaelic-speaking "Highlanders" (the language formerly called Scottis by English speakers and known by many Lowlanders in the 18th century as "Erse") and the Inglis-speaking "Lowlanders" (a language later to be called Scots)". To the uninformed reader, this looks like exactly what you contend is not true and not sourced). Elemimele (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a) Galloway Gaelic only died out in the 18th century and is not included in ANY definition of 'Highlands' I've ever heard or read about. b) unless we're going to call the page 'Highlanders up until the 18th century' or something similar my point still stands. Yes, up until the somewhen in the 18th century most Highlanders spoke Gaelic but even back then not all, especially in the Norn-speaking areas of Caithness and most certainly these days it is NOT the case that someone from the Highlands will speak Gaelic. I wish it were so but the percentage of Gaelic speakers is very low today - which brings us to the even murkier question of whether you can be a Gael without speaking Gaelic ... Akerbeltz (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps the article shouldn't be deleted (right now) if information should be merged elsewhere. In addition, the article would probably need kept as a redirect for attribution purposes. —Danre98(talk^contribs) 14:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete better covered under Gaels Akerbeltz (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is hopelessly confused, often plain wrong and doesn't even have a grasp of its scope, with its very first sentence listing various alternative terms that mean different things, then an expansion of the definition which poorly matches these terms. This confusion would be alleviated by covering these matters at Gaels and at Scottish people. As with Lowland Scots people, it appears to have been constructed to advance an OR thesis and thus nothing is salvageable for merging. Also per the previous deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaels of Scotland. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 10:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Clement Pryke

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) (closed by Dr.Pinsky Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)) [reply]


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

The current sources are insufficiently reliable. Dr.Pinsky (talk) 09:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although this seems like a Weak Keep (or even a Reluctant Keep). Liz Read! Talk! 06:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeoneer (game)

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

Board game that likely fails WP:GNG. User:VickKiang deprodded is as they found one seemingly reliable review (in German), but the other sources found don't appear to be RS, so with just one review GNG requirement of multiple sources meeting SIGCOV does not appear to be met. Prior discussion of sources is here: Talk:Dungeoneer (game). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment @Piotrus: This is probably the most borderline AfD I've been so far. I find Rebel Times to be probably reliable, it seems to be an okay ref, the cover designs for the older issues feel unprofessional, but newer issues seem to be better. The coverage is extensive for sure, and that's easily one ref for GNG. What about the other site? I don't see their editors having much expertise, but they also publish other refs, including a magazine, I tried to search for some info online on the editors, but failed to find them appearing in other RS. So whether it's an RS needs a lot of debate, though it's definitely Option 1.5-2 if this is at an Wikipedia:RfC, right between generally and marginally reliable, probably closer to the latter, but given the few available refs on BTG, I don't think the guidelines for refs are that stringent. We've seen other articles (probably worse in refs?) being debated at game-related AfDs, but this is very borderline and it's open to interpretation. Still, I guess that as it's very borderline, and there might be other refs in older magazines, considering the game having loads of BGG ratings and even appearing on the Polish magazine, I might assume there could be one more RS somewhere? Of course, this is quite close to WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, and the notability is very, very debatable. I would go with neutral to weak keep, not weak delete, but I won't vote for now as the notability is very borderline. If more other editors vote keep, I might keep my vote if it helps to establish a better consensus. Many thanks!

@Piotrus: I'm probably assuming, but at the end of each, they end with ..., and the sentences seem to be incomplete. Of course, that's my speculation, but I saw a lot of Pyramid articles being like this, with ... presumably saying there's more? VickKiang (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VickKiang Hmmm, true, I missed that. Your argument is stronger. I'd like to see at least one such sample article and compare it to the full version to see if we can expect SIGCOV. Sigh, it's such a shame that this magazine is not online. I wonder how many ppl actually read the physical copy? 50? Double sigh. Such a dinosaur in the digital era. Not that it's uncommon. Polish prime sf/f magazine, Nowa Fantastyka, is just like that too (it has some reliable reviews and such too that are next to impossible to even locate, their ToC is not well digitized either). What a waste... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd try to find one, they do have some short sample PDFs for each volume, but it seems to be more about the contents. Of course, others, such as Arcane, aren't online at all, this required $6 (probably) each, but considering its nicheness and it being no longer in print, it's strange that payment is still required. VickKiang (talk) 08:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a business. Stuff like Rebel Times or Esensja being made available to all is still an exception, and, arguably, not a great business model :( Shame this stuff is so chaotic we can't get any sort of subscription through Wikipedia library etc. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wirtual

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. I only found reliable sources related to the TrackMania scandal, which then is WP:BLP1E. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 15:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think Wirtual passes WP:NCREATIVE, specifically in "creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", along with criterion 2 of WP:BLP1E. Specifically, according to WP:NOTBLP1E, while exposing cheaters might be the most notable thing he's done, it's not the only thing he's done or the originating reason for his fame. BrigadierG (talk) 16:25, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this meets criterion 2 for WP:BLP1E, and criterion 3 isn't clear cut here. ~ Bra71l · 16:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added more of Wirtual's achievements. He personally never considered the Cheating investigation an achievement, and apparently also feels some kind of guilt over it as Riolu left streaming after the report was published. He has set many records and I've mentioned them now on the page. He is also about to cross a million subscribers so thought it would be nice to have a Wikipedia article on him. Hope you keep the article. Thank you so much and have a great day. ~ User:Nicenicey18 16:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 11:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nsimeyong

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

One of a number of articles being thrown up by new page patrol on Cameroon that are undersourced/unsourced stubs with non-notable streets, features or neighbourhoods. Content from here could be merged with Yaoundé article except all but one sentence of it is unreferenced. Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Cameroon. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to have plenty of coverage in ISBN 9783825869977 and ISBN 9782709908054, among others. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are antiquated sources - the village of Nsimeyong has been subsumed by the expansion of Yaoundé and is now a suburb of that city - not a settlement in its own right. It's a neighbourhood of Yaoundé, situated between the districts of Biyem-Assi and Mvolyé. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So? It was once a separate settlement, and Wikipedia covers history as well as the current situation. We have articles for the former separate settlements that now make up London, and they would all be snow kept if nominated for deletion, so why treat Yaoundé any differently? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Much of Cameroon has experienced urban sprawl so many villages have been absorbed. Administrative division has also been altered. Djflem (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Scopa, Antoine (2003), Démocratisation et autochtonie au Cameroun: trajectoires régionales différentes, LIT Verlag Münster, ISBN 9783825869977 Djflem (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: appears to be close translation of:https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nsimeyong, where there are sources.Djflem (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 08:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources. Djflem (talk) 09:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. With permission for early relisting by a non-sock Spartaz Humbug! 16:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Chakravorty

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

Fails WP:GNG, Not enough reliable independent sources. Nothing greater than that of trivial mentions. Most of the details added about him especially personal details are unsourced, I don't know from where the author got such details. Onmyway22 talk 06:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that the nominator was blocked for sockpuppetry, but not in violation of WP:CSD#G5.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. On first glance, it seems that although his films may be notable, he is not. He has a large number of mentions in Indian media, but almost all of the coverage is trivial, and limited to naming him as the maker of a specific film. Fails WP:GNG but there is a chance he could pass WP:FILMMAKER according to the clause "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," but I don't think so, because I think this generally refers to a series, but there is nothing to link together his body of work to make it collectively well-known. Chagropango (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article does include some coverage by reliable sources. Subject seems just notable enough to keep. Admittedly, I'm inclined to reject any AfD proposed by a confirmed sockpuppet. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yankton Sioux Tribe. Or somewhere else appropriate. The one "keep" is poorly argued, it makes only a WP:WAX argument. Sandstein 17:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YST Transit

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Small local transit operator. Article is primarily sourced to self-published website. Searching turns up little. MB 04:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 in hip hop music

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

I sent this article to draft as part of NPP duties but it was recreated by the same editor. It should be deleted so that the editor can submit the article through AFC. See Draft:2023 in hip hop music. Bruxton (talk) 04:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: found no available sources for any listed releases meaning claiming any of these are releasing next year is purely speculative and not even worth listing in a draft. Also worth noting that all the results I found for the Lil Mosey album call it The Land of Make Believe with no results for Make-Believers so even that title is inaccurate/presumably speculative. Not strictly too soon in my mind, as Serge said you've got the heavy metal page and I've also been working on Draft:List of 2023 albums which has been coming along well so far, but this page is far below the standard set by those two. QuietHere (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 04:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020 puma sightings in Santiago

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

Not a relevant event on its own. Also, WP:NOTNEWS Bedivere (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 00:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tyanna Simon

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Herisht

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

Mass-created article by Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs) about a place misidentified as a village, to which the user Rezamihandoostdar (talk · contribs) added unsourced content in 2020 about its supposed significance in Zoroastrianism. I can verify that there is a temple near Ardakan that is called Harisht or Herisht in English, among other names, but as most of these sites are self-published or travel sites, I am not 100% confident that the site meets WP:GNG. Note that Harisht in the search engine also returns matches for people with this name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junpei Oka

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shohei Kawakami (gymnast)

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vilmoš Zavarko

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No such user (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Third Man Museum

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

Content not sourced. Appears to be using Wikipedia for marketing public relations. Copy is promotional in tone and not encyclopedic. The subject is questionable in its notability. Myotus (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Museums and libraries. Myotus (talk) 02:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. There appear to be good sources in the EL section; have you done proper WP:BEFORE? The Washington Post article checks out. Doesn't seem especially promotional (no more than the article on the museum the nominator works for, as he has very properly declared), nor un-encyclopaedic. Notability is decided by sources. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The Washington post article you are referring to is an external link not a citation. The citations that are listed appear to be more promotional and provide little value to the article and appear to get more recognition for its connection to the film than the museum itself. It is important to point out that just because the film is notable does not mean the museum is notible WP:INHERITORG. Being in a national newspaper in such a manner means little for notability it simply means you have significant PR budget and/or staff. Beyond the puff marketing pieces there is almost nothing in the content of the articles listed showing notability.
    The creator and main contributor of the page (and just about the only contributor of actual content on the museum), Gstrassg, created their account then created and built the page and has contributed to nothing else on Wikipedia. Gstrassg appears to be a the owner of the museum as "Gerhard Strassgschwandtner" is listed on the page (He has not properly declared his connection with the organization). This is a Conflict of interest. As far as the copy's tone, it is better than most promotional articles on Wikipedia and it can be easily corrected as Elemimele has noted, however, it still adds to the issue that the article is a PR piece and not notable. The questionability of the article was first pointing out by Legacypac in 2018 on the talk page who moved it from Draftspace to live. I do not agree with the decision to move it live. Due to the conflict of interest and lack of proper citations (at the very least) the article was not ready be moved to live.
    My feeling is the page is not ready to be a Wikipedia article, it should be deleted or at least moved back to Draftspace WP:DRAFTIFY for other editors not connected to the organization contribute, have the proper citations, and come to a decision when it is ready to (if ever) to be added into Wikipedia. Myotus (talk) 13:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, before launching, or voting on, an Afd, you are supposed to consider not just whether the article as presented meets notability & other standards, but whether it could, especially with a small amount of work. It would have been less trouble, and much better, for you to have included some of the ELs as regular refs, rather than launch an Afd, bringing in other editors who probably have better things to be doing. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I have seen there are many Afd have have that potential. Many articles I have seen over the years sent into Afd through appear to be guided by bias, some by gender bias, some by racial bias, some by location, some by rural/urban bias, some by representation in sources, etc. Wikipedia is trying to work on that. And we need to do better. WP:BIAS Being located in a large Western city with access to multiple media outlets gives the Third Man Museum undue access coverage make what should be unnotable, notable. Keeping the article shows a location bias. Organizations need to be held to a higher standard in urban areas. Myotus (talk) 19:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, but I disagree. IMHO I’ll explain why I disagree. First, deletion at AfD is not cleanup, per AfD, [if] the can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD. Yes, it’s very biased and has a COI, but I did some c/e, it’s better (still bad though), and I’ve added the external links as refs. That WP has a gender bias is definitely a problem, see Gender bias on Wikipedia, it’s probably Anglocentric or European centric, though that’s partly because it’s an English one. But I am curious, how is this alone a deletion rationale? WP:BEFORE needs checking all refs, not just the ones currently in the article. Besides, you purpose that keeping the article shows a location bias, but how is this alone a good argument? Bias is an endemic problem, but just deleting one article doesn’t help much, so I disagree. VickKiang (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (a bit weakly); as well as the Washington Post article, it has write-ups of the "edited-but-prompted-by-press-releases" type in Bupapest Times[92], and unprompted passing mentions in the Financial Times [93] and Guardian [94]. The Telegraph and Daily Express also regard it as sufficiently worthy to mention in lists of things to do in Vienna. Given the competition for things to mention in a city as large and cultured as Vienna, this constitutes evidence it's reasonably notable. There are places where the tone is slightly promotional ("Specialists and generalists, they created the museum from scratch"), but AfD is not clean-up: the language can easily be copy-edited to ensure it's straightforward, factual writing. Elemimele (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep IMO the two refs, from The Daily Telegraph and The Washington Post are RS, independent, and secondary (The Guardian ref and this are too short to meet the significant requirements); still, I think it meets WP:GNG (2 or more are needed, it has 2), judging by the notability guidelines for organisations, IMO the press, which are well known newspaper of records, are secondary and independent. Therefore, I would vote for weak keep. See also my comment above, many thanks! VickKiang (talk) 00:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per the above. Given that there are appearances in high-profile sources, I'm sure more will appear. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Washington Post, and The Telegraph so passing WP:GNG in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against restoring-and-merging if an editor wishes to contend that this content merits mention in 2022 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 World Ninepin Bowling Classic U18 Cup

2022 World Ninepin Bowling Classic U18 Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTDATABASE and fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first source is a clear fails of WP:100WORDS. Most of the second article talks about the sport of bowling instead of the tournament. In any case having one source is a clear fails of WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist in hopes of reaching a consensus of some kind.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 19:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Additional discussion regarding a possible merge of the contents can take place on the relevant talk pages. ✗plicit 07:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships – Women's sprint

2022 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships – Women's sprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

2022 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships – Men's sprint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships – Men's single (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships – Women's single (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2022 World Singles Ninepin Bowling Classic Championships – Mixed tandem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist to assess Estonian sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The websites I listed are ERR and Postimees. If needed I can find more. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shijinlal

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

The article fails to establish why it is notable. Director has only directed one low-key film. Only one source found on the person in the article and nothing else except this, but it is unclear if that guy is the same person. Best to redirected to Grandma. DareshMohan (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

he is the director. He has directed the Film Grandma. Your vandalizing the page @DareshMohan @BangJan1999 Monhiroe (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, the page was nominated for deletion and not intended to hurt feelings. no vandalizing has been done. DareshMohan (talk) 05:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct References is given there Monhiroe (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too early, should have worked as main director on at least three films. Neutral Fan (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:52, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolette Lim

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

non notable gymnast with no medals at national and international levels. WP:BEFORE done with no SIGCOV. Singapore's local newspaper archive does not yield any coverage. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep She won a metal at the ASEAN School Games. Came out as a sexual harassment victim which has significant and sustained coverage. I've expanded the article and added the sources. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Her ASEAN School Games medal does not pass WP:NGYMNAST, SIGCOV comes from as a victim which we should avoid per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a difference between highlighting someone being a victim of a crime and someone speaking out because something happened to them. In this case Nicolette coming out for being the victim of harassment is more in line with the Me Too movement then just coverage of her being harrassed. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 20:00, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Her athletic achievements do not seem to establish notability - no Olympic appearances as far as I see, and youth-level achievements do not cut it. No medals at senior competitions. There does seem to be sourcing re sexual harassment allegations - however, we do not even have a page for Eden Ang, so keeping a page because she accused him of harassment has a page seems incongruous. WP:AVOIDVICTIM also applies, as noted above.--‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Fetterman. Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Fetterman

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

This is just a dog owned by a notable politician. Not notable enough for its own Wikipedia page. Most sources are just passing mentions of Levi. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (as article author) This nomination feels hasty. It was made 15 minutes after the article went up, within 5 minute of an edit and before I had even finished putting in content or external links. While it is true that most sources include passing mentions, that is not a justification to delete, because some are also not just passing mentions. I think we should keep it due to the multiple, independent, reliable sources where the subject of the article is the primary focus of the news articles that I list below. I think the significant coverage demonstrates notability as per WP:GNG
  1. https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/john-fetterman-fans-pa-democratic-senate-primary-20220420.html (ideal source, I think)
  2. https://theburgnews.com/in-the-burg/lucky-levi-how-a-chained-rescued-dog-became-the-official-dog-of-pennsylvania (does rely in interviews by the dog's owner, so some content lacks independence)
  3. https://www.abc27.com/digital-originals/pa-lt-governors-rescue-dog-becomes-twitter-comfort-canine/ (like above, relies on primary sources for some content)
In summary, I don't have the perfect three above, because two rely on quotes, but while that requires care for verifiability, it does not majorly detract from notability. I note the coverage is taking place over two years so far, with no reason to assume it will reduce. I don't like that this was nominated for deletion without me being notified, without any alternatives to deletion WP:ATD such as draftification or redirecting to Gisele Barreto Fetterman being considered, but more importantly, the subject meets the criteria for wikipedia = the general notability guidelines. CT55555 (talk) 02:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:LOCAL might not apply here, but WP:N does. It defines notable topics as "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". I am not convinced the current level of coverage constitutes "significant attention by the world at large" as there seems to have been very little of it outside of Pennsylvania. The coverage has also not spanned a long enough period of time to establish independent notability, IMO. I reiterate that it is simply WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to John Fetterman, while there does exist coverage in major newspapers such as The Philadelphia Inquirer, the coverage in these sources is of a passing nature and does not in my view constitute a sufficient amount to pass GNG. The other cited coverage is mostly very local in nature, and is not sufficient for a WP:SPLIT from the main article of John Fetterman. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to John Fetterman#Personal life. This is a case where WP:GNG is met but is outweighed by WP:NOTNEWS, so WP:PAGEDECIDE's advice applies: There are ... times when it is better to cover notable topics ... as part of a larger page about a broader topic. If Fetterman (the human) is elected to the U.S. Senate, or becomes a national figure by some other means, and Fetterman (the dog) becomes a major part of his public profile, an article may one day be viable. At present, this is covered in sufficient depth in the other article, to which we should point the interested reader. No material needs to be merged, in my opinion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anish Khem

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOLYMPICS and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taione Kerevanua

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Malakai Kainihewe

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that Kainihewe is probably non-notable, but I must note that the locality of coverage is completely irrelevant when trying to determine if someone passes GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chah Bardi, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad

Chah Bardi, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The image on the article that supposedly represents the article subject.

Mass-created article by User:Carlossuarez46 based on unreliable databases; name of this putative village is of a well. However, as there is nontrivial content in the article, an image which is purportedly a photograph of the village, I am instead going the route of AfD. However, I cannot verify the provided English or Farsi name (چاه بردي) in a search engine. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there's clearly something here, but I do not believe it is known by this name. In fact, given that there are tens of thousands of village articles, I do not doubt that whatever this photo is, would be covered in another article. —VersaceSpace 🌃 04:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V - there isn't a reliable source saying that the subject exists, and we only include verifiable information here. The Iranian census doesn't count because they frequently list places which aren't settlements, and the Google translation of "چاه بردي" indicates that it's a well. Google Maps labels the settlement at these coordinates as "Sarpari". Hut 8.5 11:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, I, too noticed that the closest settlement seemed to be Sar Peri. I could find evidence in Farsi-langauge news that Sar Peri exists, so not AfD'ing that one. I've asked the uploader of the image and the user who added it to the article to double-check the name of the village in the photograph. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the image to the article solely because of the description accompanying the image. Wouterhagens (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 03:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samuela Kautoga

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Moncherry

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isar, Joghatai

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

Mass-created article by User:Carlossuarez46 based on unreliable databases; alternative name "Chah-e Amiq Shomareh-ye Do Zurzamand" of this putative village is of a well. Apparently deprodded by the prodder for no apparent reason. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:V, since we don't have a reliable source which says the subject exists. The Iranian census often listed people by the nearest landmark, so the fact it appears there does not mean it's a populated place. Google translates the Persian title as "Zorzmand deep well number two" so it definitely sounds like a well rather than a village. Hut 8.5 17:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already de-PROD, by the PRODder?, so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jo McCafferty

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Couldn't find any sources on this person or her music online. Personal website and blog are offline, leading me to believe that they have moved on from music without much fanfare. Novemberjazz 23:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any of those could be considered RS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The sources added after the nomination do little more than show that this person exists, and that is not an indicator of notability. As Jo McCafferty (musician) she can only be found in a few minor local gig announcements and some gig reviews that don't add up to reliable and significant coverage. As Jo-Anne Tait (academic) she has a few brief interviews in specialist newsletters and announcements of appearances at conferences, but that does not satisfy the rules for academics either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Kickboxing Association

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

Fails GNG Zafir94 (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kvng Yes, it was a web search but my view is also shaped by previous involvement with kickboxing. I was the person who originally recommended WKA-Pro world titles for showing notability when WP:NKICK was created. I've been familiar with the WKA and some of its events for decades, so I didn't make this vote lightly. If someone can show sources that meet WP:GNG please let me know and I'll be happy to change my vote. Papaursa (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Papaursa, consider what your !vote would have been in 1980 or whenever this organization was at its peak, that's what WP:NOTTEMPORARY is about. ~Kvng (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'd ever have been able to find the sourcing required by WP:GNG, though I wouldn't rule out the possibility of sources existing. The problem is that what I ran across was about their events and individuals competing in them, which would have to be considered passing mentions from a WP standpoint. Papaursa (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep One of the most notable Kickboxing governing bodies in the history of the sport of kickboxing, was formed in 1976. They have paved the way for modern kickboxing. WKA has had a measurable significant impact on sports as per WP:ORGSIG. Lethweimaster (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would be good if some of the people voting keep could show some significant independent coverage of the organization in reliable sources. All of the various kickboxing organizations currently listed at AfD have been significant, in varying degrees, to kickboxing--that's not the issue. The issue is showing that they meet at least one of WP's notability criteria. Otherwise, we're looking at WP:ILIKEIT. I'd love to see these pages kept, but only if they're WP notable. If good sources can be provided for any of these organizations, I hope someone lets me know so I can change my vote(s). Papaursa (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Be careful not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. It's easy to fall into that trap - I've done it before myself! Lethweimaster (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 one "keep" does not cite any actual sources, which is what any topic needs to get an article. Sandstein 14:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of coverage about WBC Muaythai, its very reputable organization, most Notable Muaythai fighters that have wiki ages here, have gained their notability by winning the WBC Muaythai title. Its wrong to not have this encyclopedic article online, when we have an extensive Muaythai ecosystem. We just needed to expand the article and improve citations, these series of nomination for kickboxing article are very off-putting. Its really odd that this Organization was deleted. Anyhow, can you relist as Draft for me please, I don't want to have to recreate it again from scratch. Thank you. Lethweimaster (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Boxing Council Muaythai

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

Fails GNG Zafir94 (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for World Boxing Council Muaythai[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, ineligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep It's one of the governing bodies in kickboxing and the biggest for Muay Thai, one of the oldest, with World Championships. It offers us the notability for fighters. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Kickboxing_task_force In my opinion you should just ask for more documentation. Certainly without even more sources such articles should not disappear from Wikipedia. Or we can all go... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/World_Kickboxing_Network equals WAKO! It must be reinstated. Zafir94, but you know this mate.! Zbreller (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciate your opinion. However to pass WP:GNG - a Significant coverage in Reliable, secondary sources that are Independent of the subject is required. The way the articles have been written (sourced) - none of this is unfortunately demonstrated.

    It is indeed "one of" the governing bodies, like your said. Organizations like WMO, IMTF, WMC, IAMTF, WMF (the list is long) could definitely argue your statement "the biggest for Muay Thai".

    Just because someone "personally" knows about the organization and just because they existed in the past, doesn't make it "notable" and pass WP:GNG.

    • There are properly sourced articles, that pass WP:GNG, about other notable historic subjects that existed 'before the internet'.
    • If these organizations are in fact notable their notability and passing of WP:GNG should not be hard to demonstrate, right?


    So the solution could probably be:

    1. to either improve, source the articles as required to meet WP:GNG;
    2. or merge some of the properly sourced content into Kickboxing history;
    3. or delete;
    4. ?

    Otherwise what is the point of WP:GNG if they are not followed? Zafir94 (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 14:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meriden Gap

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

This article lacks any real clarity and is mostly written about a small green area between Brum, Coventry and Solihull. It lacks any real notability other then a name given to some green belt. I think this would be better placed either in the Coventry and Solihull articles or given a brief mention in the wider West Midlands County article. But what do other editors think? It has no real wide claim to fame. Most green belt can be given a name like the Dukeries in Nottinghamshire or the Hull Gap near Hull. DragonofBatley (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Book of Love (band)#Candy Carol album and the Candy Carol Tour (1990–1991). Consensus is against keeping, and this seems to be the most appropriate WP:ATD among those proposed, but this can be changed by editors as appropriate. Sandstein 14:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candy Carol Tour

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

This tour doesn't seem notable enough to have its own article. It's entirely referenced by primary sources and seems more like a database entry than anything.

Could also be merged into Candy Carol. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. ✗plicit 06:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

World Business Lenders

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

I don't think this business meets GNG. Although we have some references, they offer limited actual coverage. Most simply provide routine coverage of a new HQ.

The article was created by an editor with a possible COI but underwent significant cleanup to remove peacocking and promotional content. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources. [114],[115],[116],[117],[118],(this last one is an opinion piece, but may be helpful for search clues) [119]. Jacona (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jacona. I'll do some more looking into it later, but it looks like there might be enough for the article to stay (and be substantially rewritten). I feel I should point out that sources 1, 2, 3, and 5 are the same article, all appearing in Bloomberg publications. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rita Verreos

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

Former reality television contestant & beauty pageant participant. Lacks notability is both fields. Bgsu98 (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 03:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Tiramani

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

There is only one citation that appears to suggest notability: brief mention in USA Today article [120]. All other sources are self-published, SEC filings, press releases, or local newspaper simply reporting on a press release. Vast majority of the article is content promoting companies he is involved in. Can't find other sources beyond the USA Today to establish notability, and the article is primarily edited (sometimes disruptively) by apparent SPA accounts/IPs, suggesting this is largely promotional. ZimZalaBim talk 20:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly an overzealous deletion that has been submitted after numerous attempts to remove relevant and cited information by user ZimZalaBim. Simply stating that a subject is not notable is not sufficient to get it deleted on this basis. Lurxxer (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC) — Lurxxer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please familiarize yourself with WP:NBIO, WP:PRIMARY, and WP:NOT. --ZimZalaBim talk 00:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lurxxer and two other accounts are now blocked, for a combination of edit warring, undisclosed COI editing, and socking. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that @ZimZalaBim and @Lurxxer both participated in an edit war. User @ZimZalaBim removed a majority of the content from this page including many sources both primary and secondary. ThePageNinja (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorSirMister (talk • contribs) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one source found in a book [121], not substantive coverage, but it's something. How do we feel about the book source? Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Although hesitant, I agree that the USA Today article is the best source currently referenced. I see more in the edit history that I'd be inclined to take as well. [122] Might consider WP:TOOSOON and go with a draftify in this situation but I think I'll sleep on it.--Littehammy (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - looks like he's the founder and is/was CEO of two entities that seem to be somewhat notable. Boxabl looks kind of cool and there's a draft, and I found a decent amount of coverage that could help get it approved, despite the obvious COI history: [[123]], [[124]], [[125]], [[126]]. Digging into this article's rocky history, I found some media coverage of another venture he founded through 500 Group, Supercar Systems [[127]]. Unfortunately, nothing more recent, so the car company may be defunct. Keeping this from being a full keep is that there's not that much biographical info about him, as pointed out above. I also don't see much about 500 Group besides the Supercar Coverage. The book is so-so, but appears to be written by someone promoting their software. This [[128]] describes the Group and its patents, but there's no author byline, hurting its reliability. I'll look some more tomorrow and see if I can find anything more substantial. If most of the decent coverage is about his role with Boxabl, I'm not opposed to merging and redirecting this to a "founder" section in the Boxabl article (assuming the draft can be cleaned up and accepted). TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Vegas Review-Journal source [[129]] discusses his previous role with 500 Group and mentions his patents, and a large deal with Stanley Black & Decker. I found this design-focused interview from 2015. [[130]] I know interviews are considered inferior sources, but at least it sources his design background, and prefaces things by calling him an award-winning industrial designer. Some design samples follow the interview. This source [[131]] shows the awards. Not earth shattering, but I think this, the previous 500 Group info, and what could be a good future article about Boxabl puts this into keep territory. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Liz Read! Talk! 06:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consort kin

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

Appears to be an abstract social construct from Ancient China. Article has no sources and strange claims which read like myths rather than fact eg. "Corrupt and incompetent consort kins have been linked to the downward turn of fortunes for many dynasties."   Kadzi   (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep. This is a genuine and notable topic regarding the politics of both Ancient and Imperial China. Agree that it needs sources (I'll find some this week).
    While it is true that consort kin (the families of imperial wives and concubines) have been overblamed in very early legends for the downfall of dynasties, it is also historical fact that the women closely linked to male rulers (especially mothers of imperial children) and their own blood families did obtain a degree of power in the court that could and did destabilize government policy and expenditures. The men of the consort families were frequently granted rich emoluments by the emperor when he took one of their daughters into the imperial harem, including titles of nobility, enfeoffments, sinecures, and official positions in the capital. These people sometimes understandably prioritized the gains of their own clan over loyal government service, and when they also held some sway over the emperor, this could lead to some pretty big problems. A general example would be persuading the ruler to disinherit an heir apparent in favour of a younger son borne by a woman of their family, which naturally led to succession struggles, including armed conflict between the families of the two mothers. Also the men elevated to high government office by way of dowry gift sometimes lacked the training of lifelong scholar-officials and would just straight up do a bad job in a position that could cause great harm.
    The sources for this kind of thing are super plentiful in the historical literature, and I'm confident there have been multiple entire books written on the topic. I'll track some down for us and add them to the article, but it's definitely a topic deserving encyclopaedic coverage. Folly Mox (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Updating this to note that as foretold, there have been several books written about this topic, in broad historical overviews and also as specifically related to the Han and Tang periods. A search of google books for the native term "外戚" confirmed this. English language sources on the topic in general, as constrained by free access sources and sources available through the Wikipedia Library, are sparse. I have not yet searched for sourcing for the individual examples listed in the article, nor even clicked through to all the individual biographies to see if their sources contain general discussion on the topic of consort kin and their power dynamics, but all are historically attested. The article does seem to rely overmuch on individual examples rather than giving a high level overview, and organizing the concept around "leading figures" is probably misguided and an artefact of the premium position afforded biographies in standard imperial Chinese historiography. A rewrite with sources would be the ideal outcome, which I intend to manifest. Folly Mox (talk) 19:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kan'Nal

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

1. Article has only 3 references 2. Does not comply to Wikipedia layout policy 3. Written in prose form and one person point of view 4. Written in a fans pov. Uricdivine (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BEFORE, already linked above. The responsibility lies with the nominator. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_August_2&oldid=1101981864"