Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< August 24	August 26 >

Guide to deletion

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MedAccess

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources provided except for routine coverage, own website, primary sources etc. Promotinal tone and original research Mozzcircuit (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/keep: Article has now been edited to address promotional tone and provide more reliable sources. Please review and consider withdrawing the proposed deletion. Impact7102 (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability?

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please consider the following sources as meeting GNG/NCORP criteria: independent and showing information on the company.

1: Jack, Andrew (2019-11-29). "Innovative finance schemes increase access to medicine". Financial Times. Retrieved 2023-09-04.

2: "An overview of market shaping in global health: Landscape, new developments, and gaps". Rethink Priorities. Retrieved 2023-09-08. Impact7102 (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response The FT article relies entirely on information provided by the company or execs which is clear from the context/content of the article. I cannot find any indication of content that is in-depth about the company and is *clearly* attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Similarly, the second source contains a list of references which appear to attribute the information to company sources, which would also ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Gold (company)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources provided except for routine coverage and one interview, which is definitely not enough. Delete Mozzcircuit (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was international coverage at the time of the collapse (e.g. paywalled FT and Economist articles whose detail I cannot see). More visibly, there is a 2018 "Explainer: Amber Gold Affair" (TVP) summary, covering the collapse and its political implications in Poland. AllyD (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to The Economist, if anyone needs the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As well as the semi-visible coverage that I linked above and The Independent article now linked in the article, Wikipedia Library / Proquest finds a Wall Street Journal piece (SOBCZYK, M., 2012, Aug 15. World News: Gold Fund's Collapse Rattles Poland. Wall Street Journal. ISSN 00999660) saying that the company's collapse had "shaken confidence in the effectiveness of the nation's financial regulation, and is roiling national politics in the European Union's largest emerging economy" which is indicative of notability. (I did wonder whether this article might be better titled something like "Amber Gold case", as its significance is more in its fallout than in its active operation, but the crossover with the OLT Express article may be better under the present title.) AllyD (talk) 09:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Finance. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The company is notable for a very large corruption scandal. One could consider whether the company is notable outside that event and whether this shouldn't be rewritten to focus on the scandal instead, but probably both are notable. Here are some academic works discussing the company and the incident: journal, journal, [1] (Bachelor thesis), licenciate work, master work, there are others. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandru Sabalin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lower level cyclist, no evidence of notability, sources are databases or primary, or a press release about his major win (Tour of Romania, a race for national teams consisting of amateurs and pros from minor teams) with very little information about him. Actual articles about Sabalin seem to be missing or scarce. Fram (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Moldova. Fram (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Notability, the cyclist should meet one of the mentioned criteria, and Sabalin meets two of them. The second criteria is perfectly matched as he raced at three senior UCI World Championships (confirmed by official sources). he also meets the first criteria as he raced for two fully professional teams for many seasons. Also, Tour of Romania, the race he won, is 2.1 UCI Category, which makes it notable according to the same page about Cycling Notability. Andrei Anghelov (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As it says at the top of that page, "This is an essay on notability.". Sports notability essays are not generally accepted, and RfCs over the past few years have made it clear that sportspeople have to show WP:GNG notability from direct, substantial attention from non-database sources, and that participation-only notability at any level (even world championships or Olympics) isn't sufficient. Fram (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:53, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This individual does not meet wp:GNG and is a non-notable cyclist. They never race a UCI event rated higher than .2, so no professional races. They raced at Worlds but as an Amateur and Under-23 so non-notable participation's and once as an elite but did not finish. Source's I found on the rider said he only ever rode for amateur teams. Paulpat99 (talk) 09:02, 18 August 2023 (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!} 07:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just 1 gnews hit. Clearly fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Other than the nominator, there was a single delete vote, a single redirect vote and 3 keeps. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 21:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikigrannies

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominated here because PROD was contested.

Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion apply to articles about Wikipedia and Wikipedians as much as any other. As this is an article about Wikipedia editors written by Wikipedia editors, there is clearly a conflict of interest to be aware of. The PROD was removed entirely legitimately but only (I assert) because a PROD can be removed for any reason – the explanation given included It's a very notable group that plays great role in promoting Wikimedia Movement and Wikimedia Values wolrdwide. More over, this effort counters the m:Gender Gap which is one of the biggest tasks for the movement, which clearly points to a COI and a non-neutral point of view – those are not of themselves valid reasons for retaining the article.

Notability is neither inherent or inherited. For the group to be notable, significant, independent and reliable coverage of the group itself is required. What I see is riding on the coattails of Wikipedia’s notability. The article should therefore be deleted. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see references from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Komsomolskaya Pravda, among others. I think the references already present in the article are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Radio Free Europe article appears to be about someone who has created an automated Bashkir language poetry generator and which briefly says this group was asked to help. The Pravda article appears to be describing an initiative by the Federal Agency for Ethnic Affairs (Russia) to preserve Russian languages and I think it is recognising the Bashkir Wikipedia and this group as part of that. I agree these are both reliable sources independent of the subject, which is part of the WP:GNG requirement. Neither of these articles is about this group and I certainly do not see evidence that the first is anything like the also-required significant coverage. I had also discounted the second but maybe a Russian expert could help assess it better. Even so, WP:GNG says that multiple sources are generally expected and I am not yet persuaded that the group itself is notable. And given the inherent WP:COI, notability has to be beyond doubt, IMO. Dorsetonian (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is an urge to attack grannies? Wikimedia Movement values urges us to be generous and to develop Wikimedia Movement. Wikipedia has no firm rules and Wikipedia is not in favour of gaming the system. You are trying to delete grannies no matter what (despite ~20 sources present in the innocent article). You are trying to fetch all possible rules just to delete, delete, delete -- this totally contradicts with WP:SPIRIT of Wikipedia. I have a feeling that you treat Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEFIELD which is strictly prohibited. ssr (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Internet, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'm supposed to be neutral but this seems like a silly subject to bring to AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's very bad that we have users that produce such nominations instead of normal creation works for Wikimedia Movement. -- ssr (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - if possible to the page on wikimedia 1 JMWt (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not an encyclopedia article while this is an encyclopedia article as it should be. -- ssr (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm glad groups like this exist, but the coverage is not significant enough to meet the bar of the general notability guideline.~T P W 20:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But there IS coverage, and more than once and more than twice. This is fairly enough for creation work and there is no need to fight that. There are legitimate articles with only 1 source, and here we have ~20 sources. As a Wikipedian, you should support and praise that. This is for the goals of Wikimedia Movement. By putting efforts into deletion of it you and others go against global Wikimedia Movement. Why do so? Why go against global Wikimedia Movement and struggle to remove? To save server space? To punish me? To punish grannies? -- ssr (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you remain civil. An article existing because "it's a part of a global movement" isn't a reason itself to keep the article, nor is the 20 sources (WP:NOTEBOMB, WP:MASK, quality over quantity).

I'm remaining neutral, but As this is an article about Wikipedia editors written by Wikipedia editors, there is clearly a conflict of interest to be aware of... seems 'silly', almost like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human. Nobody is being "punished" here, we're attempting to achieve consensus. NotAGenious (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As user Liz said above — "this seems like a silly subject to bring to AFD". Bringing this to AfD was really silly, so we have to talk silly talks here. I would recommend cacelling the nomination so we are not forced to silly talks. 20 sources is a very sure reason to keep the article. "Quality over quantity", you say? That's excellent, let's work on quality! But we have to keep the article before that. -- ssr (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"A conflict of interest to be aware of"—no doubt. Well, we are aware. But this is not a reason for deletion! Some fixes? More text? Point me out all the issues with the text so we can work on it. But the article should be kept in any way. Promoting Wikimedia Movement is a goal for ALL OF US. This kind of activity is (and should be) encouraged by the commnuity. Conflicts should be fixed, but movement should be promoted in any possible ways: so that keeping the article is a way to promote movement (article is notable and sourced enough), and deleting the article is a way to harm the movement. Why should we harm the movement? I won't do that. -- ssr (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Liz evaluated the case absolutely correctly: this was really "a silly subject to bring to AFD". User:Dorsetonian did really a silly thing. Please keep the article and ask him to do no more things like this. All this is counter-Wikipedian activity. This should be stopped immediately. Please do it. --ssr (talk) 09:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I might support having articles like this on the project, that highlight the work of groups of editors, I think think this was a good faith AFD nomination and Dorsetonian did nothing wrong. I can oppose the deletion of an article while still acknowledging that AFD is an important part of reviewing articles to determine what we think should be main space material. As I have my own opinion on this one, I'll let another closer handle assessing this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability is not fame or noteworthiness. Notability is a construct. This group gained media attention because of their association with Wikipedia. They inherited noteworthiness from Wikipedia. This led to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. This coverage means that the subject is notable. It doesn't matter why it's notable, once it's notable it's notable. See Category:Wives and girlfriends of association football players to see how it works.—Alalch E. 21:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One more solid piece of IRS SIGCOV would be sufficient for me. Here's my source analysis: 1. encyclopedia.ru: passing mention in what appears to be a group blog. 2. resbash.ru: some background on the topic, but most of it is an interview with a member about Bashkir wiki-volunteering in general. 3. zdf.de: video that throws an error code. 4. bashgazet.ru: about editing Bashkortostan Wikipedia in general, no apparent mention of "Wiki-Grannies". 5. udmdunne.ru: announcement for a Ural wiki-seminar, no mention of topic. 6. chaskor.ru: passing mention. 7. kp.ru: mentioned in half a sentence. 8. ru.wikinews.org: not independent. 9. gosvopros.ru: substantial coverage. 10. gosvopros.ru: coverage by the same outlet and author as #9. 11. prufy.ru: mostly interview material. 12. bashinform.ru: passing mention. 13. ru.wikipedia.org: not independent. 14. kazanfirst.ru: Q&A interview, not independent/secondary. 15. bashinform.ru: mention in a quote, not secondary or SIGCOV. 16. idelreal.org: mention in a quote, not secondary or SIGCOV

JoelleJay (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the analysis. ZDF video appears to be broken, but it existed. Maybe there is a way to get that video. There are probably also Russian and Bashkir videos from VGTRK, but I so far failed to search them (they are from on-air TV). As for "8. ru.wikinews.org: not independent" — yes, not independent, but reliable and original. It was written directly in English (and Tatar/Baskkir) by Farhad Fatkullin, who is not independent, but is very familiar with the subject and is realiable as a source because he can be trusted in terms of factual accuracy and other types of relevance. -- ssr (talk) 09:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Incest in literature. There is clear consensus against a standalone list, but I'm not seeing the argument for deleting the history. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incest in film and television

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just two footnotes. A terrible failure of MOS:TRIVIA, WP:NLIST, WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, in the form of 'random films and television featuring topic foo'. WP:NOTTVTROPES. If someone tries to rewrite Incest in popular culture (which I feel needs a WP:TNT but theoretically could be a notable topic), I doubt anything from this list of trivia would be useful there anyway. Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest in literature _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, Television, Popular culture, Sexuality and gender, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Incest in literature - Basically, following up on my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incest in literature, we should not have a massive example farm spread across three articles, and rather have a singular prose article on cultural depictions of incest. As Incest in literature is in the best shape of the three, the other two lists should be consolidated over there as the basis for a rewrite. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a pure example farm without context. Notable as the topic may be, it requires deletion as unsuitable for Wikipedia, i.e. WP:DEL-REASON #14. Wikipedia is not meant to be a TVTropes-like list about every single appearance of the subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Incest in literature. I support Rorshacma's scenario. There are a number of secondary sources on the topic (or sub-topic film/television or parent topic in culture, respectively), so I don't think this fails WP:NLIST/WP:GNG. Those sources likely feature some of the examples here, so it makes sense to keep the content in the history and WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. Daranios (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios @Rorshacma Per my comments at 'in popular culture', I'd think that that article (ipc) being the most broad would make for the best redirect/merge target. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. I'm happy to write up a short stub at Incest in literature based on the sources that have been shown in that AfD. If anyone wants to stubify this one instead of redirecting, I'd be fine with that too. But I don't feel inclined to help on an "in pop culture" or "in film and TV" article, so I won't be proposing that myself. -- asilvering (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Query: I've added several examples from international film to the list. With sources for notability (professional reviews or something?), could I migrate them to whatever redirect ends up being the outcome of this AfD? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mac Dreamstate See WP:NLIST. Just referencing that work x has the theme of incest is not enough to make a list - that's fine for the article about the work itself and inclusion in the related category. To make a list, we need to show similar lists exist. And this article is not even, techically, titled "a list of". Which is why the proposed rewrite by asilverwing and me will not look like a list, but will have a bit of a prose with few examples backing up the analysis present in soruces. I hope this helps? See also similar rewrites, ex. Venus in fiction (now at FAC) and how it looked a year ago and how it looks now. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Venus in fiction is no longer at WP:FAC—it was just promoted and is now a WP:Featured article. TompaDompa (talk) 01:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, some editors advocating Redirection, others a straight-out Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per Rorshacma. Most of this is missing reliable sources, or violates WP:NOT, or both. There is nothing to WP:PRESERVE, but there is a valid search term where the topic can be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Krash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable due to failing WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United Kingdom. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it appears that for some reason, this page was never listed in the appropriate deletion categories. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Vaurie, the nominator is responsible for identifying potential sorting categories. That's why the form asks you to identify topical areas involving the subject of the article. It's important not to skip filling out this section of the nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thanks Liz, but I'm not that clueless - I clearly included the categories "Music" and "United Kingdom" above when I nominated the article. However, I think that a technical issue occurred - I don't understand why the AfD didn't go into the categories. Perhaps I reloaded too quickly when I submitted the query with the XFD Twinkle thing. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article passes WP:GNG as I can see the coverage on reliable and independent sources like this from The Fader, this from Clash (magazine), this one from Hypebeast (company), this from Culture Custodian, which is also a reliable website used in more than 500 wiki citations. There are many more independent and reliable articles identifying this artist, establishing its notability.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 18:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Businesspeople. Netherzone (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 14:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Los Horcones

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Massive number of footnotes, but only one of them covers the subject directly in any detail. The article is full of excessive detail about Skinner's work, which allows for many more footnotes. This was previously proposed for deletion, or I would have gone that route. ~T P W 14:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 14:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joker's Favor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All plot and lacks notability Indagate (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. Indagate (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found several sources on this episode ([2],[3],[4]). I'm not certain of the reliability of all of those sources, so I could also support a redirect to Batman: The Animated Series. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. First appearance of Harley Quinn is likely to have more than a few references out there. If consensus is to merge/redirect, then List_of_Batman:_The_Animated_Series_episodes, exists, as well. - jc37 18:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This episode is the first appearance of Harley Quinn in any medium. She was invented for the TV show and was only later added to the comics and movies. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles should not be nominated because an editor took a single glance at it and thought it was poor, articles should be nominated because an editor can not find sources, clearly sources do exist here.★Trekker (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, continuing what User:StarTrekker said above, the sources are quality. Especially source 2 which is from the Hollywood Reporter and mentions the episode multiple times! So, not just a barely-mention. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 07:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This topic is clearly both notable and well-documented. The episode was critical to the inception of a character that is likely to survive permanently in English literature, even if relatively contemporary. Albanaco (talk) 15:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Stump Music and Arts Festival

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

1 hit in gnews and nothing in Australian search engine trove. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If someone wants to put forth some effort to improve this article's sourcing, i could easily change my mind. As it stands, i agree that it fails GNG. Bonewah (talk) 15:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

8964 (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ONEOTHER: the "9th millennium" entry is barely related; and 9th millennium redirects to timeline of the far future. ltbdl (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ltbdl (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree there appear to only be two pages that are likely to be sought by visitors to this disam page, and this can be sorted out by a hatnote. I'm not sure which is the more likely target tho. JMWt (talk) 07:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: have retargetd 8964 to the section on "Naming" where it is mentioned, and moved the redirect hatnote there too. No link needed to the 9th millennium, any more than for the other 999 years of that millennium. PamD 08:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is barely even a ONEOTHER situation: other four-digit numbers do not redirect to the minor planets they are associated with, even when (unlike 8964 Corax) they actually have articles: e.g. 8013 does not redirect to 8013 Gordonmoore. There's certainly no need to include 9th millennium, which redirects to timeline of the far future and has nothing to say about the year 8964. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mambas Noirs FC

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unsourced since 2016: two sentence stub about an unnotable football club. ltbdl (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Africa. ltbdl (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mambas Noirs have played at least three seasons in the Beninese top division from 2005-2011 and then again in 2017 before suffering a double relegation and disappearing, so it's frustrating this article wasn't sourced when it was created back in 2010 considering it's not the easiest to source these articles. Most importantly this search shows they were significantly covered when they were in the league in 2017 and this talks about a budding rivalry with Requins from 2010. I can't access [5] as it's about a player but may be of use. This doesn't look like GNG but at least tells us who their trainer was during their 2017 top flight season. I'm also finding sources frustratingly hard to search for because a site search of 24haubenin is difficult and brings up results that searching the site thru a web indexer does not, for instance this and this is not SIGCOV but demonstrate how they and several other clubs were kicked out after the season was abandoned in 2010. It's going to be a slog to source but I'm absolutely convinced a sourced stub is possible here. SportingFlyer T·C 11:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, very very few of these sources came up using traditional search engines. So if you Google and just see database entries from sport score websites, you haven't gone far enough... SportingFlyer T·C 11:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've turned it into a neat little referenced stub. Can add more if needed. SportingFlyer T·C 13:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, that's much better! i withdraw this nomination. ltbdl (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also turns out they played in the CAF Champions League in 2005 under the name Donjo! So this is an absolute keep in my book. SportingFlyer T·C 13:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Top division club, clearly notable. Number 5 7 15:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being a top level club that qualified for international competition and improved sourcing by SportingFlyer has improved article to meet notability guidelines. Demt1298 (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG, and looks better after expansion.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zmiivka (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Textbook WP:ONEOTHER situation: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, and one is the primary topic, then a disambiguation page is not needed—it is sufficient to use a hatnote on the primary topic article, pointing to the other article. (This means that readers looking for the second topic are spared the extra navigational step of going through the disambiguation page.) HappyWith (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and Ukraine. HappyWith (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to specify this explicitly in the original nom: The Ukrainian version of the page doesn't have any other links on it other than the two on the English page, which likely confirms these are the only villages named Zmiivka. HappyWith (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The relative size of the Ukrainian articles also confirms the one is likely the primary topic. —Michael Z. 12:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – clear WP:ONEOTHER situation, and there's already the needed hatnote as Zmiivka. There does appear to be a species listed on , but I suspect that's just a translation, and nobody would be searching enwiki for Zmiivka to find it... though I have no clue which species it actually is, search results aren't helpful. (Those search results also support the current town in Kherson Oblast at Zmiivka being the primary topic.) Skarmory (talk • contribs) 06:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

W35DW-D

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another DTV America/HC2/Innovate LPTV with no significant coverage anywhere, and not much to speak of in general (despite the attempt to represent the 2011 CP grant date as its "sign on", it was only licensed in 2021). (This is another station that was part of the failed bulk nomination of HC2/Innovate station articles that intermingled stations like this one with facilities that may have, if not more notability, at least more substantial histories.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This station is a complete waste of electricity, engineering, tower construction resources, and filespace on the FCC's servers, and it's doubtful the public hasn't spared a thought about it (it now carries only one channel full of infomercials because two Ion stations carry Grit and its parent company killed its affiliation). Nate • (chatter) 22:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ReVanced

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources, the only reliable coverage I could find is [6]. The article should be redirected to YouTube Vanced, as it is only barely notable as Vanced's successor. Yeeno (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (Probably) - As an independent app I agree that it has essentially no real "coverage" (many apps don't, and many apps also don't get wikipedia pages). I'm unclear on if the "ReVanced" app is developed by any of the same members, as if it was it might actually make more sense for the "YouTube Vanced" article to be renamed ReVanced as it would essentially be a name and logistical change of a continuous project. However if none of the developers or team have any stake in this new app, then I would consider it a functionally separate entity in terms of dictating article notability and thus agree to delete this page.A MINOTAUR (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As Mino already said, for programs in general there are few "news" articles, unless there is some controversy surrounding that topic. For that reason I believe that the standard of what counts as a source for significant coverage should not be as high set for software as it might be for more traditional entities. After all, Wikipedia isn't meant to just be a mirror or collection of "news" articles.

I think notability is proven by the roughly 3 million users this project currently has and by the astonishing amount of copy-cat sites that attempt to impersonate ReVanced for monetary gain or malicious interest. I see value in having Wikipedia as a trusted source to affirm what the actual website is, as it is more accessible and readable than GitHub.

As for the heavy reliance on primary sources: This is essentially unavoidable as any publication could also only ever rely on ReVanced as the primary source for information like the size of the userbase for example. Taku1101 (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Taku1101: There is an essay detailing how the notability guideline can be applied to software at Wikipedia:Notability (software); the criteria it uses still depend on the existence of reliable third-party sources, because WP:Notability applies to all articles, and it says: Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Unfortunately, there really isn't a way around this, regardless of how you think things should be. Notability also isn't determined by a WP:BIGNUMBER, nor is it WP:INHERITED from Vanced, so we need reliable third-party sources to determine notability. While I understand the concern about fakes, Wikipedia isn't the place to solve that issue, as, again, we are dependent on what reliable independent sources say; per WP:SELFSOURCE, primary sources are only used for self-descriptive information such as an app's website or version number, and cannot be used to support notability. Yeeno (talk) 06:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand and accept the arguments that you have presented above but further reading on WP:RS and specifically WP:QUESTIONABLE leaves me confused on the matter of what is actually to be considered a reliable source. More specifically, you mentioned the article by TF to be the only reliable coverage you could find. But what makes that coverage by TF a reliable source compared to the coverage by gizchina or tarnkappe.info? Taku1101 (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Taku1101: What makes a source reliable is mostly detailed on WP:SOURCE, and editors regularly discuss the reliability of sources based on these criteria; the results of such discussions can be seen at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. In this case, TorrentFreak was noted for it often being cited in mainstream media, i.e., other reliable sources. On the other hand, most blogs are not cited in other reliable sources for various reasons, so it would be harder to treat them as reliable sources of information. Yeeno (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well on that matter, I'd probably start a discussion on a site like tarnkappe.info as it seems to me on first and second glance to fall into the reliable category. I'm somewhat less sure about gizchina. I don't know as to how this would be handled then, considering that WP:RSPMISSING denotes that the absence of the source in question on the list does not make implications in regards to it's reliability. I cannot find further guidance on how this would be treated in a discussion about AfD on the basis of a lack of WP:RS, given that it is the central point in favor of deletion. Taku1101 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I see a single RS with coverage of this subject, TorrentFreak, [7][8], and even those two articles together don't offer much SIGCOV. I slightly disagree with the nom's proposed redirect, as it's a separate piece of software, and separate project, but I cannot think of a better WP:ATD and there's brief coverage in the target article. —siro χ o 05:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I don't feel like TorrentFreak is reliable, but if it is, still not enough. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't think an additional relisting would bring this discussion to a consensus a closer could act on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Luiz of Orléans-Braganza

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biography article about a Brazilian person who was a descendant of the then/now-extinct Brazilian royal family. Most, if not all, of the information in the article deals with information other than relevant biographical data about Pedro Luiz of Orléans-Braganza himself. Details are purely genealogical. The interwikis seem to have been built on cross-wiki spam. I bring it for community evaluation. Sturm (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Brazil. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've taken a close look at each of the sources. The only ones that give him some coverage that isn't just mentioning his name are the ones about his demise in a plane crash, and even then, not enough coverage to say any of them qualify for attesting WP:GNG. Since monarchy was abolished in Brazil almost 2 centuries ago and there's zero chance that it's ever coming back, the claim of being a pretender to the throne is not noteworthy enough to sustain the article. Rkieferbaum (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PROD'd article, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-sourced and coverage of his dynasitc position and death in plane crash. Richiepip (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Richiepip: "Dynastic"? A dynasty is defined as "a succession of rulers". Pedro Luiz wasn't a ruler. His father wasn't a ruler. Neither his father's father, or his father... there's no dynasty to speak of. And reports of dying in a plane crash don't qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is beyond ridiculous to claim the House of Orléans-Braganza is not a dynasty. Richiepip (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me if you have anything of substance to add to your point. And please keep it civil. Thanks. Rkieferbaum (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Richiepiep. I also strongly oppose deletion. This is not ptwiki where any sort of work is destroyed. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to House of Orléans-Braganza. A good portion of the article is dedicated to his family, and the rest is mostly his personal life, which doesn't seem notable. The sources as well are mostly about his family or about his death. Listing him in the members of the House and noting his death would suffice in my opinion. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see no reason to delete. A person doesn't have to be super well-known to be notable enough to have an article. There are references about him and they seem like reliable sources. It seems kind of nit-picky and excessively deletionist to delete this article. The article seems too long to redirect to House of Orléans-Braganza, though redirecting would certainly be better than deleting. Vontheri (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it was deleted from Wikpedia in Portuguese per WP:NOTINHERITED. It was previously discussed that it doesn't make sense a line of succession of monarchy doesn't exist anymore for more than 100 years. 1993 Brazilian constitutional referendum is a good example of how irrelevant monarchist movements are in Brazil. It should be deleted per WP:NTEMP because most of the news appeared when he died. Kimbler (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
N This is the english wikipedia, not the portuguese. Completely irrelevant if they have an agenda and decided to delete it. 2804:388:411A:9335:1:0:2DBB:8641 (talk) 18:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to King Kong Escapes. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gorosaurus

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A Godzilla kaiju who has two major film roles. Despite in universe notability, the character is an all-plot article, and a search yields very little in terms of developmental info and reception. From what I can tell, there just doesn't seem to be enough out there to justify this article's existence. A possible AtD would be a redirect to King Kong Escapes, which seems to be Gorosaurus' biggest movie role. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Film. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to King Kong Escapes - Only had two appearances that were more than simple cameos/stock footage use, and searches do not turn up anything that are not just summaries of those appearances, or churnalism "Top Ten Kaiju that could appear in the Monsterverse!" style lists. The corresponding article on the Japanese wiki appears to be better sourced, but it looks like those sources are almost entirely just different editions of various "Godzilla Encyclopedias" and are supporting very little outside of plot summaries of his(?) two appearances. Rorshacma (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect per Rorshacma. Tertiary sources don't meet standards of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:SIGCOV. Articles need significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Ramirez

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject appears to fall into WP:BIO1E from winning a beauty pageant. Not enough here to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is neither inherent to the position, nor otherwise supported by sources. BD2412 T 01:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 04:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kiaraliz Medina

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject lacks a sustained amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Puerto Rico. Let'srun (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Cunningham III

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJUDGE. Let'srun (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and California. Let'srun (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NJUDGE. "References" (actually external links) 2 and 3 are broken and the 1st is his highly unofficial "profile". IncompA 03:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I fixed the broken links and added some more references. He seems notable not only as a high-profile judge whose rulings are often in the news but as someone arrested by the UCLA police for "driving while black" and winning a settlement from the university. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:07, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Eastmain. There are in-depth sources about him: [9], [10], [11], [12]. 129.222.136.103 (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess changes to the article and sources brought up in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Yes, there are sources, but I don't see how they would be particularly noteworthy compared to other judges in large cities. In terms of the police brutality incident, he attracted some attention. I'm leaning towards WP:1E applying here, however. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:BASIC per sources we have available. I do not believe WP:1E applies, as the subject has coverage for multiple things presidtion of police commission of a large city, superior court judge of a large city, victim of police brutality. I believe the subject is not excluded by WP:VICTIM either due to the nature of the settlement. —siro χ o 06:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. As with the previous administrator who closed this, I'm just not seeing a consensus. There are some weak keep arguments; it is policy that this topic is required to meet NCORP, and not the somewhat lower bar of GNG: as such there are a couple of "keeps" that receive lower weight. However, when sources have been provided that ostensibly meet NCORP, there is the expectation that those arguing to delete rebut those sources. The OP has provided reasoned arguments against the provided sources, but multiple other "delete" arguments have not done so; and many predate some detailed source analysis. As such I cannot give those !votes full weight either. The remainder are evenly divided, and have a basis in policy. With NCORP, just as any other notability criterion, reasonable editors may disagree about borderline topics; specifically, how a source needs to show itself independent, and what volume of coverage is necessary to be significant. This topic clearly falls into that gray area, and I see no basis for further weighting that would tilt this toward consensus one way or the other. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bigface

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. There's a discussion on the Article Talk page explaining why certain references fail the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in Bleacher Report [13] and UPI [14] plus all the other sources in the article... We're fine I think for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, do you not think that the Bleacherreport fails ORGIND seeing as how it relies entirely on information provided by its founder and his twitter post? And the same with the UPI report - based entirely on the announcment and quotes from Butler? What am I missing here? Why do you think these meet GNG/NCORP criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
UPI is a press agency and is generally considered RS. There's this from a Canadian sports network [15], this from CNBC [16], we have at least five RS discussing the event. That's GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wall Street Journal in the article, we have more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, I don't think you've addressed the question. You're simply commenting on the basic requirement that each must be a reliable source. I'm assuming all the sources meet RS. But as you know, this is a company and therefore we look to WP:NCORP to see how to implement GNG. Which includes the requirement for in-depth WP:CORPDEPTH "Independent Content" WP:ORGIND. Are you just deciding to ignore NCORP? If not, can you point to specific paragraphs in any of those sources which meet NCORP WP:SIRS? Thanks. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it meets NCorp, it's at GNG though, that's enough. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, and as you've been told at another AfD recently, the standard to be met here is WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does, the first criteria is ORGCRITE, which we have. AUD is fine, we have coverage from two different countries, all independent of the subject. Oaktree b (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Oaktree b, you might note that WP:SIRS tells you how to apply the criteria. In particular, lets look at WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH (below). HighKing⁺⁺ 10:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Featured in Men's Health magazine [17]. Coverage in the sports press, the business press, the health press, the general entertainment press, in the USA and Canada. We're well past notability. Oaktree b (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, can you point out a specific paragraph in a specific reference which meets WP:SIRS/NCORP? We're agreed that because this topic is about a company, GNG/WP:NCORP applies. It says we require at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company or their execs - for example, articles that rely entirely on interviews, quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even if slightly modified - if it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND.
So looking at the Men's Health article, which paragraph meets NCORP? I mean the entire thing is recounting an "exclusive interview" with the founder and we need to see *in-depth* information about the company which *clearly* does not originate from Butler. All of the "detail" comes from Butler. For example, paragraph 4 starts with "BIgface has come a long was in a seemingly short amount of time" which is clearly an opinion of the author but might get your hopes up for the remainder of the paragraph. Next sentence talks about Butler. Next is about one of the company's first coffee releases winning a prize. But then the last sentence makes it obvious that the preceding sentence was a regurgitation of Butler recounting his version of the beginning of the "journey". So no, not only fails ORGIND but also fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'm not this involved. I've said what i have to say. Oaktree b (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you !voted and you participate a lot at AfD so you should realise that a topic can't "pass GNG" and fail NCORP seeing as how NCORP is essentially the guideline on how to apply GNG to companies/organizations. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've !voted. Please stop badgering me Oaktree b (talk) 22:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree b. --evrik ^(talk) 14:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per general notability and good coverage. However, the company is quite young, and a thorough review of sources may be needed to confirm their relevance. LusikSnusik (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LusikSnusik, can you point to any of the "coverage" which meets WP:NCORP - that is multiple sources (two) with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Thanks. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NCORP is not meeting here. Okoslavia (talk) 10:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Bagumba (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think this is a strange one - the company was founded by someone who is a 10 out of 10 notable athlete and hasn't really been covered outside of him, but also has been covered a lot. It clearly passes WP:GNG while appearing to fail WP:NCORP, but NCORP is designed to avoid coverage from press release situations and doesn't really cover companies like this. I'm neutral, defaulting to an IAR weak keep. SportingFlyer T·C 19:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment @SportingFlyer I agree. As you say the purpose of the guideline is to avoid "press release situations" which leverage lazy journalism into newspaper coverage, i.e., where news articles don't show journalistic labours like fact-checking, research, quotes from other sources, etc.

Articles like this appear to fail WP:NCORP only if one accepts the position advanced by @HighKing above ("we need to see *in-depth* information about the company which *clearly* does not originate from [the article subject]"). That collapses in-depth and independent into a single test, effectively requiring a source that could satisfy WP:SIRS without relying at all on facts provided by the article subject. That's not an obvious, or even fair, gloss on the wording of WP:CORPDEPTH. Even if it was, common sense should consider (as you suggest) if the volume of coverage argues against a finding of no-notability.

~~Without a deeper dive into the challenged sources myself I don't feel like my vote is meaningful right now. I may have a deeper look later in which case I'll cast a vote.~~ Oblivy (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability has been shown based at least on:

the Bleacher Report article[[18]] (investigates the history of the business enterprise and includes content from others on twitter)
the Sun Sentinel Article [19] (not very long, but includes information not sourced from Butler), and
this Mirror article [20] which I've added to the article (analysis and commentary and relies on external sources to comment on his plans)

Oblivy (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SIRS which effectively "collapses in-depth and independent into a single test". The "Independent Content" of WP:ORGIND requires in-depth analysis/opinion/etc on the topic company. Content that relies entirely on interviews with the owner/founder are not independent even if a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at the entire text, not just the part you snipped:

Independence of the content (or intellectual independence): the content must not be produced by interested parties. Often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

That's 100% consistent with what I was saying above, echoing @SportingFlyer, that the rule is there to exclude coverage that results from shoveling mere PR content from a company into a news article.

The last sentence, which you omitted from your comment, says the content must include independent journalistic efforts. Perhaps you would prefer (and feel free to RFC the change, which I'll probably oppose) if WP:SIRS instead said:

Independent content, in order to count towards notability must include substantial content sourced from unaffiliated sources.

It doesn't.

Your gloss on the rule collapses "S" and "I" into a single standard, i.e., that there has to be substantial independent content in each article, counting only facts derived through gumshoe journalism rather than through relying on facts provided by persons with the best knowledge and then checking/investigating/analyzing using other journalistic tools. This reading is not dictated by the words of WP:SIRS or other relevant policy, is insulting to the by-lined journalists and the reputable publications for whom they write, and risks deleting (as has happened in the past) in-depth articles which are well supported by independent, good faith journalism. Oblivy (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I confess, your point isn't particularly clear to me, apologies. I may be wrong, but what I think you're saying is that you can meet the "I" (Independent Content or ORGIND) requirement if the article contains some content, even trivial content, and that is a separate test from the "S" (significant coverage or CORPDEPTH) requirement whereby content provided by a source connected to the company may be used to meet this requirement. Content (including interviews/quotes/attributed fact/etc) that has been produced/created by a source affiliated with the company is not evaluated for the purposes of establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:03, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is, if an article is in-depth then it's S. And if the source is independent of the article subject it's I. Your reading of WP:ORGIND collapses the two creating a needlessly high bar inconsistent with the purpose of the policy which is patently to avoid press releases from transforming into reliable sources just because they got republished by a third party.

Note that WP:ORGIND refers to "independent source" 15 times, and only says "independent content" once, and it's talking about who "produced" the content (again, supporting the idea of not allowing regurgitated press releases). Oblivy (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Oblivy, I think my understanding above was in-line with what you're saying above. I disagree with this interpretation for the following reasons.

You've quoted ORGIND in full above and then explained that the text is 100% consistent with what I was saying above, echoing @SportingFlyer, that the rule is there to exclude coverage that results from shoveling mere PR content from a company into a news article. The last sentence, which you omitted from your comment, says the content must include independent journalistic efforts. Let's break that down.
First, the rule is not solely to exclude mere PR content. Elsewhere you've also said that the purpose of the NCORP guidelines is to avoid press releases transforming into reliable sources. This interpretation is very limiting and incorrect (or only partially correct). The purpose of the NCORP guidelines is to avoid relying on *content* produced by the *company* (or entities associated with the company) from being used for the purposes of establishing notability.
Second, it doesn't say that the content must include what you describe as "independent journalistic efforts". It clearly states there is a requirement for the author to provide in-depth content in the form of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Can you point to a specific paragraph in any of the sources where you believe this type of content (i.e. "Independent Content") is contained?
Finally, from my understanding of the method you are using in applying the tests outlined in WP:SIRS, in essence you are pushing for an interpretation whereby content produced by a Primary source (i.e. an interview with a founder) can fail ORGIND but be used to meet CORPDEPTH, and other content from the author and therefore from a source unaffiliated with the topic company can be used to meet ORGIND (notwithstanding the point above) even though it fails CORPDEPTH. This is an incorrect interpretation, if content fails one of the tests it cannot be used to effectively pass another of the tests. If that were so, one effect of this interpretation is that content from affiliated sources and Primary sources which contains in-depth details could be used to establish notability.

Perhaps if you don't accept what I'm saying above and maybe I'm not very good at explaining it, we could ask a question at the NCORP Talk page? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your three bullet points in order:

certainly we agree a company shouldn't be able to get a press release (or equivalent) published and have it count toward notability. But you use the word "content produced by a primary source" to describe any article that relies mainly on facts provided by the article source, as if there's no role for the journalist or their editors. Look at the bulleted examples under "dependent coverage“ -- they don't describe journalists making use of information obtained from a company while otherwise performing the journalism task in good faith;
yes, independent journalistic efforts is an attempt to summarize the last sentence of the quoted language. Those words aren't in the policy but you understood what I was referring to. Your proposed reading would practically excise those words out of the text of SIRS. If you look at the Mirror article it clearly includes efforts to contextualize this business as part of his career (analysis), and the journalist sought information from people other than the article subject to help with that task (investigation, fact checking);
I'm not going to engage in any detail with point 3 because it's full of loaded language; this doesn't fail ORGIND (or any test), and I'm not advocating for "content from a primary source".

Not sure "asking a question" at the policy talk page is appropriate. The policy is in force and we should discuss here whether article meets the policy as it is written. Trying to divert this to elite interpretation risks reinforcing the divide between the language as written and how it is proposed to be applied by editors such as yourself. Paraphrasing a comment made elsewhere, the discussion is happening here, and let's keep it here.

But I would like to see an end to the kinds of comments above like "as you've been told in the past" and "you should realize". While you may be frustrated your reading of the policy is being put to question, I'd ask you to hesitate before suggesting other editors are acting improperly if they don't yield to your view. I certainly regret not pushing back more against such pressure in the past. By all appearances @Oaktree b had a similar view to mine but gave up. If you disagree with an argument, fine, but scolding people like that doesn't seem very AGF-y. Oblivy (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start at the last point. When I was referring Oaktree to previous discussions at AfD, those points weren't being made by me but by other editors. I cannot recall having a similar discussion with Oaktree b on this topic in the past. I recognise Oaktree b from their participation at NCORP-related AfDs and consensus is that NCORP describes the application of GNG for certain topics so saying a topic "passes GNG but fails NCORP" makes no sense. I would have expected Oaktree b to be aware and to know that and in that context, their response knowingly ignores consensus.

For the rest, I've read what you're saying several times. There is no equivalency between your substitution of your own words and meanings to the carefully curated words and phrases that are in the guidelines. Your claim that your interpretation is as the guidelines are written does not stand up to scrutiny and this was the purpose of my last post, and you have failed to engage with any of the substantive points. Fine, you will hopefully continue to engage with other editors also at AfD and perhaps some of the things I've said above make might make more sense to you in the future and with more experience at NCORP-related AfDs. I've posted a question at the NCORP Talk page here. Apologies if my writing style can appear abrupt or "scolding", it is not my mindset nor my intention to come across like that (it is a difficult thing to change and I'm working on it). Although we have disagreed and are each holding to our views, thank you for AGF and being nice about it. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly,

1) Yes, I looked again at the exchange and agree that GNG not NCORP was worth correcting, sorry, although the 2nd one seems a bit more aggressive (we all have our moments, but still...);

2) The carefully curated words don't mean what you say they do, at least not in this situation. I have read them very carefully. But we're not going to agree on that. I'm not trying to change them by using other words, but quoting huge chunks of text doesn't work in this context. Oblivy (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage does not meet NCORP's strict standards for what contributes to GNG. NCORP (and GNG for that matter) is very clear that content must be both independent and SIGCOV to count towards notability. It'd be utterly nonsensical if merely tacking on a trivial sentence of independent commentary magically transformed a non-independent Q&A interview into an ORGCRIT-meeting source. Just as a source with significant independent analysis of the topic doesn't get disqualified just because it also contains a quote--we simply exclude the quote when evaluating ORGCRIT for that source. This proposed system of intra-source unidirectionally-distributive SIRS components is not supported by any PAGs. JoelleJay (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NCORP not met, as above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 22:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the very long discussions above; but most succinctly per JoelleJay. You can't synth your way into good sourcing. JFHJr (㊟) 01:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and comment; as well as disclaimer as article's creator) I'm saying keep as per the reasons given by previous editors in this discussion. I'm also puzzled by the second relisting. This was 4 keeps, 1 weak keep, and 3 deletes after two weeks of discussion. Both ample amounts of editors discussing as well as lengthy discussions based around policy/guideline were present. Honestly didn't really understand the initial relisting and obviously AfD isn't a vote, but the second relisting really does confuse me as, again, there were already a lot of opinions given and they were well thought out and based on policies or guidelines. I think this should've just been closed as no consensus. Another thing I'd like to address is "synth". I don't really get why that's getting said. I didn't "SYNTH" anything, just took what sourcing on Bigface has said and put it in chronological order in this article to give readers an easy-to-digest company/brand history format to read. I think this discussion got bogged down and ended up becoming an acronym dump and a reminder for me that sometimes discussions are hard to follow when they get put into a really esoteric place. I get that all the policies or guidelines brought up are important or have value or merit to them, but maybe that's maybe been at the detriment of a simple eye test. Obviously that's subjective and hard to put into words, but it's pretty clear that third-party reliable sources have covered Bigface as a company (and/or brand, not sure if there is a distinction that matters or is relevant here on Wikipedia) in a way that helps establish notability. With this being now the third week that this discussion is up (after 3+ weeks of the topic of this article's notability already being put into question, and therefore rattling around in my mind), my feelings on the matter are best said by the guideline page: "while having a deletion notice on a page is not harmful, its presence over several weeks can become disheartening for its editors." Soulbust (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've added some information and sourcing to the article. I found these two sources (1, and 2) that I believe fill that criteria of being sources that "contain independent content showing in-depth information on the company." The latter I still need to incorporate into the article. I also found this source [from Sports Illustrated (SI). I think deleting this article would be ridiculous and that redirecting/merging would be more sensible. The obvious target would be to Jimmy Butler, but including this information would cause undue weight as I mentioned on the talk page discussion about this. That SI article I think gives a good in-depth coverage on Butler's passion for coffee, as do a lot of the sources already present in the article. So, my take is definitely still to keep this article, but given the more than ample sourcing present on the topic, I think renaming this article to Jimmy Butler and coffee and restructuring it would be preferable to deleting or merging. There is also precedent for such a topic as one can see with Fidel Castro and dairy. That is just an alternative though, and again, I would still opt to keep this straight up at Bigface. Soulbust (talk) 20:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the delay was partly because some of the interpretation being applied was being discussed at the NCORP Talk page here which may assist a closing admin. Or not. But it isn't uncommon for AfDs to take this long and longer. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response Looked at the sources you mentioned/added.

This Afrotech reference fails for a couple of reasons. First, Afrotech is a marketing platform owned by Blavity targetting "black and multicultural consumers on a deeper level" and delivering "digital campaigns by strategically distributing content" across multiple platforms. The article itself has no "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND, just regurgitating company news and repeating stuff published in Sports Illustrated. Fails RS/GNG/NCORP.
Sports Business Journal article is likewise totally void of any Independent Content whatsoever, relying on promotion by Butler's agent, Bernie Lee, who retells the folksy stories of the startup along with more folksy marketing bumpf from Britt Berg, the COO. Fails ORGIND/GNG/NCORP
Sports Illustrated article starts off in the first sentence acknowledging that the article is based on interviewing Butler. More folksey marketing without a single sentence of "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND/GNG/NCORP.

Those three sources are prime examples of the types of sources that NCORP was designed to specifically exclude for the purposes of establishing notability. They are thinly disguised marketing (and not even very thinly disguised at that). HighKing⁺⁺ 15:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I included the SI reference as one that would be good for inclusion if this article were to be retitled/restructured to Jimmy Butler and coffee, but forgot to be clear about that. My bad on that.

I just think once this conversation became ORGIND this and CORPDEPTH that, it began to lose any interest to me in terms of really wanting to participate. If I hadn't created this article, I wouldn't really have any desire to engage in that sort of conversation because to be honest, we're talking about a company/brand founded by an All-NBA player; and one covered by sources like AP News, ESPN, CNBC, Sports Illustrated; and one that's part of the Shopify Creator Program; and one that's collaborated with Van Leeuwen Ice Cream; as well as served as an official sponsor for ATP Tour Masters 1000. So if whatever guideline says this article fails its criteria, and we're talking about that sort of company, then maybe that criteria isn't bulletproof. And not saying that it has to be. But when enough people opine that this does, even if barely (i.e. weak keep) passes GNG, then maybe ignore all rules can be reasonably applied here. Soulbust (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm somewhat sympathetic to the IAR argument put forward by SportingFlyer and sorry to Soulbust for this dragging on so long, the standard for notablitity, as per our inclusion standards, rise beyond mere coverage. Newsworthiness is well established here, but notability is not that. There is perhaps some encyclopedic content that could be written about the subject, but that content would be much less than the extensive history of everything surrounding the subject, as told to and republished by the news (Wikipedia:Interviews is also somewhat applicable here). Perhaps this could be made clearer in the subject specific guideline but the coverage based criteria do not, and were not intended to, exclude only cases of "self promotion and indiscriminate publicity", or PR material like press releases. But the depth of secondary analysis is unfortunately not sufficent to support a standalone article at this time. I would recommend a redirect. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to a Redirect to Jimmy Butler as per WP:ATD. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. JFHJr (㊟) 17:38, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah except redirecting to Jimmy Butler would again create undue weight since there is a considerable amount of coverage on the issue. What does "our inclusion standards" even mean? Yes, I get that mere coverage isn't enough, but coverage on Bigface isn't at a bare minimum level or anything. Excluding sources that serve to cite background information (basically that first paragraph in the Origins section), there's about ~30 sources that go pretty in-depth into Bigface. Again, this would create undue weight if placed on the Jimmy Butler page. Also, because I think it may have been glossed over, I brought up two sources: (1, and 2) that again, meet the criteria of being significant sources containing independent content showing in-depth information on the company (in this case, as opposed to on Butler). I also agree with Oblivy's previous statements and the sources they listed as ones that also meet this criteria. I think they worded my feelings on the policy and guideline in a better way than I could. And once again, as an alternative to deletion and alternative to a redirect, I think retitling this article to Jimmy Butler and coffee and restructuring this article to be based around that in a way that is similar to Fidel Castro and dairy would be better than redirecting to Jimmy Butler. That redirect would probably result in ~a paragraph getting merged in and gutting a lot of encyclopedic-appropriate information in the process. I think the IAR sentiment brought up by SportingFlyer is somewhat similar to my eye test comment, as this is a case where the NCORP guideline is understandably strict to ensure there is some standard being upheld, but that (perhaps excessive) strictness can run counter to spirit of creating legitimate articles on legitimate topics. Soulbust (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re redirecting to Jimmy Butler would again create undue weight: Spinning off a separate does not automatically alleviate issues with undue weight, as per WP:SPINOFF, with two examples. I do apologise for neglecting to comment on those two sources, but the first fails ORGDEPTH, and the second (though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise) is questionable re ORGIND. The sources (all of them, taken collectively) do not meet the criteria, whether subject specific (organisations and companies), or generally. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Comes close enough to fulfilling WP:HEY for me. Has some work to do, but notability has been established at the very least. More reputable, secondary and independent sources could solidify my vote into a normal keep over a weak keep. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey InvadingInvader, which sources meet GNG/WP:NCORP for you? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here, rough or otherwise.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Hi, this would be the third time this discussion is being relisted. WP:RELIST states "in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation either within the [relist] template, or in addition to it, on why they did not consider the debate sufficient."

You said you don't see a consensus here, which I agree with. I am not against it being relisted per se, but I am confused as to why this would be relisted a further time, as opposed to being closed as "no consensus"? Soulbust (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How would you summarise the argument for Keep based on the participation to date? As it stands, there are 5 Delete/Redirect !votes plus 4 Keeps that either admit sourcing fails NCORP (or agree with !votes that admit) or that sourcing needs a thorough review - against arguments presented by three editors who either presented novel arguments which were rejected at NCORP Talk or are left invoking IAR. For me, why can't the Keep !votes point to a single source that they can stand over as meeting the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 15:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't summarize the argument. I wouldn't theoretically want that admin responsibility, and also don't enjoy AfDs, especially when they turn into "agree to disagree" takes about policy (which is why I tried to avoid this one as long as I did). This one also had the added aspect of being fairly deep into acronym-dumping (don't intend that to have any sort of harsh connotation, just don't know a better way to phrase it rn). And for some that's not a problem, but I usually check out when the conversation ends up like this, and this one in particular has gone on longer and much more in-depth than any I've been a part of (or at least recall being a part of).

Also, I don't think sourcing fails NCORP, and I'll see if I can do that "thorough review" within the next 2-3 days (I am a little bit busy offline atm — — also, I am assuming based on previous discussion that the "how to apply the criteria" is the relevant checklist for that review).

Having created the article and going through the sourcing in the moment of creating + adding info to the article, I do firmly believe there are at least 2 sources that meet the criteria. And just in case my response a little bit above ("I included the SI reference...") from earlier was missed (I totally understand, this conversation is again very in-depth and branching), I just think the overall criteria isn't bulletproof and applying it to its strict letter can cause the spirit of what it is trying to do to be lost, and therefore cause legitimate articles on legitimate topics such as this to be deleted or redirected as well. And I think other editors who have said to keep this article (either keep or weak keep) would at least somewhat agree with that, given the IAR sentiments, and the sentiments that the sourcing indeed meets GNG. Soulbust (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said above why NCORP/SIRS is met (barely) and don't want to reopen that discussion. But it's fair to say the NCORP talk page discussion did not "reject" the idea that WP:ORGIND doesn't mandate disregarding all information sourced from the organization. Most of the editors voicing that opinion on the talk page also voted here. That discussion IMHO should not be given any weight at this AfD. Oblivy (talk) 05:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's laughable. See WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. HighKing⁺⁺ 08:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my words. Let's keep it classy, please. Oblivy (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soulbust, I did make a short comment saying that I didn't see a consensus yet. But I never relist more than three times. At that point I'll close as "No consensus". I tend to rely more on relisting than closing discussions as No consensus until that seems like the only option because I find that No consensus closures usually are dissatisfying for editors on all sides of a discussion, neither those advocating Keep nor those arguing for Delete are satisfied with No consensus closures. And I will say that I have seen discussions completely change after 3 relistings, sometimes editors suddenly start showing up and making thoughtful arguments that weren't present until then.

But that is just my practice, we have hundreds of admins, probably about a dozen of them help out when they can at AFD and so just because I don't see a consensus doesn't mean that another admin won't and close this one early. I'm just one admin and while I do spend a lot of time assessing AFD discussions lately, my admin opinion isn't the only one here. By the way, we could use a few more admins, with their own approaches, helping out at AFD but it's August and it seems like a lot of editors and admins are spending time doing activities that don't involve being online and editing Wikipedia. I seem to be closing more discussions than usual but I would love more admins and NACs to share the workload, some of whom might agree with you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Okay no problem at all. I was just confused as I don't think or at least don't recall being involved in AfD this in-depth before, as I try my best to avoid the situation. But what you said about "no consensus" closures being dissatisfying is definitely a sensible explanation. Thank you for the response and for all your hard work! It is much appreciated! Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be closed as No Consensus. We have Keep !votes that admit it doesn't meet NCORP. We have two editors who are dragging their heels and trying to find loopholes in our guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 08:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments above. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 21:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did an assessment of the 36 sources present in this article, as well as 5 additional sources not present. To not make this a huge chunk of text, the wikilink to that is at my user general draft page. The source #s align with the 1-36 present here. For 37-41, I externally linked them on that assessment. There are 6 sources I believe do pass the SIRS criteria (#s 4, 11, 12, 24, 36, and 38). There are 6 more I am unsure about (mainly due to me being unsure if the source itself has been cleared as a reliable source) and 7 more that I would say perhaps. I add notes for these 19 sources that explain why I categorize them as a "yes", "unsure", or "perhaps". Of the remaining 22 sources, I think 18 probably do straight up fail the SIRS criteria. The other 4 are just not applicable as they only source background information that provides the context around the bubble situation. Regardless again, 6 sources that I think do already and 5 more that do if they are considered reliable. Soulbust (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To get this back on the log. Note TK momentarily
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note while I closed this as N/C, HighKing and I subsequently discussed it, and while I don't see a consensus and they did not ask me to relist, I do think I may have assessed the !votes incorrectly so willing to reopen the conversation and have someone else assess it for closing. Star Mississippi 02:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty odd to me that this got relisted four days after being closed as no consensus, and due to a discussion with an editor already on record pushing for deletion. Additionally, this is now the 4th relisting, which seems like unfair harsh scrutiny to just kick it down a further week; it's particularly unfair (imo) when opinion seems rather evenly divided - logically and literally speaking, no consensus seems to me a fair call. Even disregarding offline commitments, this discussion has made me rather burnt out. Soulbust (talk) 02:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no lack of discussion prior to the close, and aside from a single "delete per args above" there was no change in voting after @Liz said she saw no consensus. Burnt out doesn't even begin to capture this moment for me. Oblivy (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Soulbust @Oblivy It may not run a week. Someone else is welcome to re-close at any point. I just relisted it to get it back on the log so it didn't get lost. Star Mississippi 13:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that this has been going on for a month now. This is very atypical for a deletion discussion unless it gets lost during the relisting process. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, while I disagree (fairly strongly) that the keep !votes correctly interpret PAG, specifically NOT and DUE (and of course, N), I feel like we may be better off with this closed, and if necessary, revisting this in two months or so. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, I think I should have exercised the option of Kicking it over to RSN in or shortly after my initial comment. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article clears NCORP with flying colours. For WP:THREE, I’d pick Young (CNBC, 01 Oct 21), Fillari (Sprudge, 30 Mar 22) and McCarthy (Good Morning America, 20 Jun 22). Together, they meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The first focuses on origin and backstory; the second on the company’s place in the industry, plans and objectives; and the third concerns continuing notability and wider coverage. None are casual or passing mentions; the subject is the focus of each. All three meet WP:SIRS as reliable, independent, secondary sources. All three are impeccable sources for the subject matter. Like Soulbust (thank you for superb research), I have read the articles repeatedly and all three meet SIRS. This discussion has gone on far too long. The NCORP objection has been thoroughly and repeatedly refuted. It’s time to close this as Keep. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CNBC source is entirely based on an interview - says it in the 3rd paragraph. Fails ORGIND. Sprudge is entirely based on an interview - says it in the headline. Fails ORGIND. Good Morning America is based on the presenters visiting his pop-up and interviewing Butler. Just watch the video. Fails ORGIND. Fails SIRS. Fails NCORP.

Can any of the Keep !voters who claim that sources meet GNG/NCORP simply point to any particular paragraph in any particular source (e.g. Para 3 starting with "One day..." from XYZ source) so that we can quickly assess both the "Independent Content" (i.e. not relying on company/exec) and the significant in-depth info about the company? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is that no source that quotes an interview can be an RS? Wow. That's... novel. Please supply the policy that suggests that to be true. Even if it were policy, the Sprudge and CNBC articles were not entirely based on interviews with Butler. Fillari included an interview after a clear and independent summary of the company, and Young included quite a bit that he does not attribute to the Butler, including the Spotify entrepreneur info. Please provide your RS that shows the author [is] related to the company, organization, or product or that a related party produce[d] a narrative that [was] then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by Fillari and Young. As for GMA, you must have watched a different clip. The quoted one is about the collaboration between Van Leeuwen and Bigface with a heavy focus on the history and character of the latter. You keep saying that the sources fail SIRS and NCORP with no evidence at all other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. To misquote Inigo Montoya, "You keep using those policies. I do not think they mean what you think they mean." SIRS is very specific, and all three sources I mentioned (and most of the others in the article) match its definition. Ditto for NCORP. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I forgot that you also asked for a quote. From Fillari: "What began as a 2020 NBA bubble pop-up is now the official coffee brand for the players and VIP lounges at the Masters and WTA 1000 events in Miami, some of the biggest tennis tournaments in the world outside the four Majors... Located in the North Sideline Club of Hard Rock Stadium, BIGFACE has carved-out an immersive coffee experience that appeals to all coffee drinkers." Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my position. Articles can of course include quotes/interviews but there must also be significant in-depth content *about the company* that is clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. This is just PR bumpf - he's pretty good at that. The Shopify (not spotify) info is about Butler, not the company, so irrelevant. The GMA clip is entirely based on an interview and they show a clip in the article which I mentioned. Looking just at the text of the article, it is attributable to people connected with the company (partners, etc). The section of NCORP which provides the basis is the WP:ORGIND section (which I pointed to above). It requires independent content - that is content that is *clearly* *attributable* to a source *unaffiliated* to the subject. The "quote" you've provided is a summary in the lead-in to the interview and likely provided as part of the interview or press pack. It is insufficient to meet CORPDEPTH, even taking them as CORPDEPTH they're only a couple of sentences. Here's much the same information provided ahead of another interview from Butler a couple of days later. Maybe try finding a source which doesn't rely on Butler and Bigface for all the information? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I kindly ask that you step back. If you have replied to half the people who disagree with you it may be time to step back a little. As you have used the same argument to every single person who has disagreed with your specific reading of policy (one with which I and other editors disagree) I am asking that you do so. Please and thank you. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can do that, it's trying to find a balance, especially in circumstances where I've been name-checked in the reopen by the previous closing admin. It would also be easy to disengage if editors didn't misrepresent guidelines and what I've said. For example, you say lots here have disagreed with my "specific reading" of NCORP - but nobody here has pointed to an alternative reading which has consensus. Oblivy posited an alternative earlier above but didn't find support at NCORP Talk where that novel interpretation was discussed. Your position appears to have been to challenge the existence of a section that supports the interpretation above (which is the community consensus position), and then when that section was specifically pointed out to you, your response is a request I step back because of BLUDGEON. OK. Having clarified those points I won't engage with you further if that is your wish. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two modest points, as like HighKing I've already said a lot in this discussion:

there may be a vanishingly fine line between disagreeing with an editor about their position and "misrepresent[ing] guidelines and what I've said", particularly when what the editor said can be found in the same discussion thread; and
consensus can change is policy, and arguing for a reading of policy that hasn't necessarily reached consensus should be encouraged, particularly where that interpretation has been advanced by a large number of editors in other discussions.

Oblivy (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Individual AfDs are not really the appropriate place to advocate for wide ranging changes to PAG. For one, my understanding of how OUTCOMES has been applied more recently is that AfDs should typically be read narrowly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the suggestion it was not OK for editors to discuss a possible application of policy wording in the face of a claim there's some consensus the words should be interpreted in another way. Apologies if I gave the impression I was proposing a policy or guideline change. And I agree, if policy/guideline wording needs to be changed that discussion should take place elsewhere. Oblivy (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I'm not sure Sprudge even counts as a RS. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. After several weeks, nobody has put in a good argument specifically for keeping the article, only that some of the content could be put in a different article.

If anyone would like the contents of this article userfied for further work, let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of animated feature films awards

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article of uncertain utility, whose title isn't really an accurate reflection of the contents. This isn't a list of animated film awards per se, but an exhaustive series of tables of every individual film that won various animated film awards -- but since each of those awards either already has or should have a standalone list of its own winners anyway, there's very little pressing need for an omnibus one-stop-shopping platform to table all of their winners together.
Further, some of those tables have so many columns that they're side-scrolling well past the rightmost margin of the page, which is poor article design as tables should really be kept to a fixed left-to-right width — sidescrolling past the left or right margins negatively impacts the article's readability, and defeats any potential purpose of tabling the winners of different awards together in the first place: if the idea was "to provide a comparison of the winners of different awards", but it's impossible to compare the winners of any awards whose columns are more than one margin's width away from each other because there's no way to see those two columns on screen at the same time, then what was the point?
I'm certainly willing to withdraw this if somebody's willing to tackle converting it into a genuine list of awards, which just links to each award's own standalone list of its own winners instead of trying to comprehensively table all the winners itself, but it's just not all that useful (or accurately titled) in its current format. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List if a bit of a mess as it is right now but I don't see in concept anything wrong with listing awards for feature films.★Trekker (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rename it List of winners of awards won by animated feature films. The table should be changed so there is a scrollbar for the bottom. Dream Focus 12:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a scrollbar to scroll across the tables — the problem isn't that such a scrollbar is somehow lacking, it's that there shouldn't be any need for a scrollbar because content should never extend past the page's existing right margin in the first place.
And as for just renaming it, the question remains, why would an omnibus "list of winners of awards won by animated feature films" even be necessary in the first place? Since any notable award will already have its own standalone list of its own winners anyway, why would we also need a one-stop-shopping list to view all of their winners together, separately from the standalone lists that already exist? Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting on this nomination itself at all, but just thought I'd note that there are many different screen sizes. And the reason we have side scrolling, is for reasons such as this. But that's just a question of page formatting, and I presume, has nothing to do with the question of whether a page should be deleted... - jc37 18:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And properly formatted content that's sticking within standard margins adjusts itself to whatever the reader's screen resolution is, so that sidescrolling remains unnecessary regardless because the table self-adjusts rather than becoming a sidescroller. So different screen resolutions aren't a riposte to the sidescrolling problem, because a properly formatted table just readjusts itself to stay inside whatever the user's margins are at any resolution. Bearcat (talk) 12:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what about a simple list of awards, not award winners, like this draft in my user space:
- User:A. B./List of animated feature films awards

It needs work. For instance, it follows the organization of the current list -- is the United Kingdom part of Europe? Opinions may vary about the UK and Europe these days, but France -- isn't France still in Europe?

Also, it's extremely weighted towards the U.S. - lots of local film critic awards (San Diego, Seattle, etc.). I'm not sure that's a problem to solve this week, however.

@Bearcat

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After several hours working on my draft, I discovered this:

List of animation awards

Many awards appear on that list or my list but not both.

I'm turning in. I'll look at this more tomorrow.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 05:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see LISTN being met, and I don't see what navigational purpose is served that isn't already covered by existing lists of awards and films. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Per WP:SNOW, I am closing this discussion early because it is clear that it will have no other outcome.

This discussion was previously closed, also using the WP:SNOW rationale, but the closer reopened the discussion after some editors objected to the close on their user talk page. Respectfully, I disagree that SNOW is inappropriate. SNOW does not require unanimity—we employ SNOW as a pragmatic, time-saving measure in cases where it is evident that further discussion has negligible chance of changing the outcome. This is one of those cases.

A portion of the small minority of the editors who argue that the page should not be kept have pointed to WP:NOPAGE to argue that, while the article's subject may be notable, it makes more sense from an editorial standpoint to write about it in the context of the broader Georgia election racketeering prosecution article. Another portion points to WP:NOTNEWS to argue that, while it's clear the article's subject is newsworthy, it may be premature to determine if it is encyclopedia-worthy. The participants here have broadly rejected those arguments, describing the image as historically significant and pointing to the depth of coverage that exists about it as evidence. Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mug shot of Donald Trump

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Initially WP:BLAR'd by LilianaUwU, but contested. Per WP:NOPAGE, at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; the subject is adequately covered in the article Georgia election racketeering prosecution and it would be better to cover this as one topic rather than making what amounts to a premature content fork. For these reasons, this should be blanked-and-redirected to the aforementioned article, where the subject would be better covered. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Widely described as a historic photograph, the most iconic photograph of a US president ever taken. Highly anticipated and subject of extensive media commentary even for months before it was taken, and extensive commentary and analysis after it was published. Clearly notable as a photograph. In my view its notability, its notoriety, and its iconic status extend far beyond the investigation and prosecution in Georgia; therefore, merging it with any of the Georgia articles is not appropriate. (I'm the creator of the article) --Tataral (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Come on, this is all over national media and is historic for any U.S. president and is notable in its own right. Even Nixon never had a mug shot taken of him at any point. Being relevant to the prosecution of Trump doesn't make it not notable in its own right. Master of Time (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not contesting this photo's notability. To the contrary, WP:NOPAGE is about where we cover notable topics and how that information is organized on Wikipedia. There are cases, such as this one, where several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page. It makes sense to handle this as one page rather than prematurely forking this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Georgia election racketeering prosecution as the one who originally BLARed it. I've said it already, but indeed, the subject is covered well enough in the article I originally redirected it to, it doesn't need a fork. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As weird as it is, I'm switching my !vote to keep - there's way too many sources, and the article is pretty fleshed out, for this to be not an obvious keep. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is, arguably the most important picture taken of a United States President, current or former. This is national history and this picture will be in textbooks in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.149.209 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution. Most of the content is about the booking and not about the mug shot itself. It's premature to say that the photo itself is notable due to being historic. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Photography, and Crime. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution - I am unsure about this article's coverage being WP:SUSTAINED in the future and I do not want to WP:CRYSTAL it. Also, not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Georgia (U.S. state). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution Works best within that context. Not much to say about the photo itself. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 02:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution. This is undoubtedly an extremely iconic image, but I doubt there's much to be said about the image itself. It fits more within context of the racketeering case. Alexthefinolian (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alexthefinolian, if you read the references in the article, you will see that reliable sources already have much to be said about the image itself. Cullen328 (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article, considering it is the only mugshot of a US president. There are a few problems with the article talking too much about context rather than the actual photo, but these can be fixed rather than deciding to delete the article entirely 82.35.44.68 (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution. Ultimately there's not much to be said about the photo besides the fact that it exists and that it's historical. If the subject grows beyond just "this is an important mugshot", it should have a page. I have changed my vote to keep now that is has a sizable reception section and the article is about more than just the photo existing. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy close~~ as there is .000001% chance of this being deleted. This is not a situation where we need the eyes of XfD to have a merger discussion, all articles related to that man have sufficient eyes. Have a merger discussion on the Talk. The nomination is not disruptive, but it stands zero chance of deletion, so let's not waste seven days. Star Mississippi 02:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC) Well, I think that RFC is wrong, but apparently it's how we do things, so updating this to just a IAR Close with the same reason as before. Star Mississippi 03:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per RfC (the result of which is reflected in the text of WP:BLAR itself), contested blars are generally to be handled at AfD, so I think this is the appropriate venue. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
that's ... silly (the answer, not your response). Amended, but I still think it's a waste of seven days. Star Mississippi 03:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I support invoking WP:IAR for this close. 7 days is too long for this deletion notice to remain prominent. —siro χ o 03:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
+1. WP:SNOW close (as not being deleted), invoking WP:IAR if needed. Talk page discussion would imo be a much better venue (to determine whether to redirect or not) given the circumstances. Will list on WP:ANRFC if it’s not already there. A smart kitten (talk) 09:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution for now. Donald Trump may have a ton of indictments, but he is not officially behind bars. How it may affect the 2024 Election is up to speculation, but it hasn't happened yet. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote to Keep - Donald Trump's first Twitter post-ban was a picture of his mugshot, alleging election interference. It's also his first post on X.com. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 06:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic has incredible notability, sustained news coverage, and will likely keep its notability well into the future, to the point where it should be able to stand as an article of its own. The article can be reworked to focus on the photograph itself and the reactions to it, rather than the booking. Muhibm0307 (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close: This just happened. Wait until the buzz dies down. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as obviously notable and one of the most important images of a US president GLORIOUSEXISTENCE (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Absolutely notable. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is context in the existing article that probably isn't appropriate at the suggested merge target, so the WP:NOPAGE suggestion might not apply. Let's consider revisiting this once it's cooled a bit. Also, we need to stop nominating so many current event articles for deletion while they are current. These discussions generally go seven days. Let's try follow the spirit of WP:RAPID and wait until things have slowed down before bringing these to AfD. —siro χ o 03:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already recognized by many reliable sources as an iconic and historic photograph. Cullen328 (talk) 03:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The photograph has been widely covered in reliable sources and is widely recognized as historically significant. CJ-Moki (talk) 03:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pile on Keep Hardly any reason to contribute at this point, but yes this is a clearly major photo in it's own right, which already has many, many articles regarding it. Would recommend a speedy keep, as an AfD deletion while the page is no doubt being viewed a ton may come off as Wikipedia being a bit partisan (though I'm genuinely not sure in which direction, and do not feel at all this was the nominees intent). A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to have jumped into iconic status already, and is being compared to some of the great photographs in American history. Didn't notice if the photographer is named on the page but certainly should be. An interesting instant-phenomena, and meets WP:GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand the arguments made for this page's deletion, as we don't know the influence this will have on political events and media going forward just yet, but I think this is definitely notable enough to be its own page. In particular, we've had several news sources and commentators claim that this is a uniquely significant and/or extraordinary image of a president.[21][22][23] Independent of its subject, this image is notable as it will remain the first mugshot taken of any American president. Outside of that, we've had similar types of topics related to Trump that one could argue should be merged with other pages, but have stayed up due to having enough notability on their own. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, iconic, first of its kind for a current or former President of the United States, reliable sources are already publishing original and interpretive opinions on this and I fully expect (without going too WP:CRYSTALBALL) that this topic will only gain more detail, not less, over time. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge per NOPAGE. The information of this article can be easily placed into Georgia election racketeering prosecution. A stand-alone page is not needed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^talk 04:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — International coverage of the image is already coming in. Historic, iconic, worthy of an independent article with analysis, reactions, and critiques. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution. First of all, Wikipedia is not a news site, and every single thing that is in the news does not have the long-lived notability that warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. We already have an article about Donald Trump. We already have an article -- many articles -- about his 2020 election nonsense. Indeed, we have an article about the single exact criminal trial that this relates to. How about a compromise. We close the AfD now, I nominate it again in a year, we ping all the people who called it the most iconic photograph in history, and see if any of them remember this. Sure, it is the FIRST EVAR mugshot of a former president, but a lot of things are the first thing of another thing, and this doesn't make them significant or notable. In fact, this is the world-historic first-ever Wikipedia comment with the word "ggjlfedjdfs" in it (go ahead, check and see). jp×g 04:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree with above comments that current-events articles should probably be left alone for a few days prior to the AfD oubliette, but while we're here, we might as well go through with it. jp×g 05:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historic event, and the length of the current article is enough to justify its existence. recentlyryan RecentlyRyan
Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution Much of the history section is only tangentially related to the mug shot itself and would be better covered in the main article per WP:NOPAGE. I also have doubts about the ~~WP:SUSTAINED~~ sustained coverage of this. Will the case have more coverage? Absolutely. Will the mug shot in particular continue to be referenced nontrivially, such that there is more to add than dramatic descriptions of the image? I would question that, and it seems a bit premature to tell. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 04:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sustained? This image will end up as a statue at Trump's presidential library or something, if a sculptor can get the eyes right. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this is back open, I should clarify my intent here. I am not trying to dispute the notability of the subject, as SUSTAINED explains; the notability is clear. I am rather commenting on organizational grounds, in the sense that more sustained coverage would provide a more diverse array of aspects to cover in the article beyond background information and a lot of repetitive commentary on the actual photo, which can be covered in the main article. For example, I think that more in the way of merchandise and the photo's wider relevance to the Internet would justify keeping, since it would not be appropriate to cram that into the prosecution article. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historic mug shot, with plenty of RS coverage. Davey2116 (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. A historic event, with international RS coverage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution Why not just a search link to a new section in the racketeering article? that way people searching for info on the mugshot will find it, and we don't need another article. lemongrasscap (talk) 04:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Though recent, the article is free of a sense of bias and provides a succinct summary of one piece in an incredibly complex puzzle. This photograph may become one of the most enduring images of Trump’s life and legacy, and deserves to stay on Wikipedia as its own article. --BakedintheHole (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I was actually considering drafting the article myself before discovering it. This is definitely notable, and is a major historical event. The photo is the source of speculation itself, rather than the person in it, so that works out fine too. Resources are reliable, content is still coming in, and history is being made - deleting this page now would be ludicrously premature. Respectfully, time will prove the proposals to delete or merge were utterly unwarranted. I'm lost for words at the monumental consequences that this photo will leave. I think @BakedintheHole's summary above - "a succinct summary of one piece in an incredibly complex puzzle" is a more eloquent one than I can devise. Aubernas (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many here have said this is notable because there are a bunch of newspaper articles that mention it; I don't think this argument holds up. There are many things that have been mentioned in a bunch of newspaper articles. Should we create articles for Donald Trump's eyebrows, Donald Trump's eyes, Donald Trump's nose, Donald Trump's mouth, Donald Trump's chin, Donald Trump's neck, Donald Trump's shoulders, et cetera? These have all been mentioned in a bunch of newspaper articles many times. How many of these can we do? Must we get all the way to Donald Trump's spleen? Can we go further back? How about William McKinley's right thumb? George Washington's ankles? jp×g 05:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahah. Very droll of you.

Seriously, go ahead if you want. We'll delete them straight away, of course (sorry William McKinley and your fabulous thumbs) and keep this, because this is actually an important historical event. Not just a subjectively strange-looking body part for a mere caricature on NBC's Saturday Night Live Aubernas (talk) 05:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This unproductive comment by JPxG should be ignored by the closer because there is no significant coverage in reliable sources of those ludicrous redlinked topics, whereas this mugshot is the subject of significant coverage in many reliable sources, which consistently describe it as "iconic" and "historic". Cullen328 (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get 41 news results for "Trump's ears", 27 news results for "Obama's ears", and 10 news results for "McKinley's hand"; one would hope our notability criteria take into account whether something is a genuinely independent subject, or whether it's a minute facet of something that is given extremely heavy news coverage. There are enough news sources that we could easily clear GNG for Joe Biden's activities on July 15, 2021 -- the question is "why can't this be part of Timeline of the Joe Biden presidency (2021 Q3)?" jp×g 07:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we take the notability criteria into account, your examples should not have articles, whereas Trump's mugshot should:
"Trump's ears" has 41 results because there is an article titled "Music to Trump's ears", which is not about his ears.

"Obama's ears" has 27 results, none of which are in-depth, mostly because phrases like "all ears". There's one article about an animal named after his ears, but this wouldn't warrant a stand-alone article.

"McKinley's hand" has 10 results, but none are articles about his hand.

"Trump's mugshot" has 362,000 results and "Mug shot of Donald Trump" 162,000. With countless in-depth articles by reliable sources.

Hypnôs (talk) 08:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thorough analysis by Hypnôs reveals how spurious the ludicrous argument by JPxG actually is. Please produce your three best sources that devote significant coverage of McKinley's hands. Or even better, drop this utterly unpersuasive argument. Cullen328 (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fine: the stuff about shoulders and spleens was rhetorical flourish which I should not have made. I maintain that the President of the United States, as almost certainly the most thoroughly-documented person on the planet Earth, has substantial coverage for virtually any conceivable activity, and we need to use different criteria than its mere existence. For example, Joe Biden's activities on July 15, 2021 were documented in depth by SIGCOV from France24, PBS, Detroit Free Press, Politico, The American Legion, CNN, NBC, Reuters, Al Jazeera. jp×g 09:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There already are several other criteria.

Your example of "Joe Biden's activities on July 15, 2021" does not merit a stand-alone article because of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Hypnôs (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS was the first thing I linked in my delete !vote... jp×g 22:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is, however, George Washington's teeth. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution - The photo does not warrant it's own page as of now, but definitely it's own section on said page. ~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 05:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I'd think the mug shot of this (Redacted) will be famous for many, many years. At worse it's a merge to Donald Trump. No prejudice on revisting if we are wrong, and it's forgotten in the mists of time. Nfitz (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute - the courts can refer to him as a r**ist in a written decision, but I can't? Nfitz (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The photograph is important enough for a page in its own right. -Mad Mismagius (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Georgia election racketeering prosecution. Although this is a major event in American history, the mug shot should not have its own page, unless we were to also add separate pages for the mug shots of the rest of his inner circle. Consider WP:NETRUMP, and that Wikipedia is meant to be politically neutral. If I were to create a page devoted to Joe Biden stumbling as he climbed a flight of stairs, it would be speedily deleted and possibly (not likely) redirected to a section about his health in a larger article. The documentation of this event does have some merit, but not on its own. Please merge. Hotdog with ketchup (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The shortcoming of your argument, Hotdog with ketchup, is that the depth of coverage of the Trump mugshot is vastly greater and deeper than the depth of coverage of the mugshots of other RICO indictees. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sources already include:

One image, one face, one American moment: The Donald Trump mug shot (Associated Press, Aug 24, 2023, "an enduring image that will appear in history books long after Donald Trump is gone.")
Belligerence and hostility: Trump’s mugshot defines modern US politics (The Guardian, Aug 24, 2023)
What to know about Trump’s mug shot (Politico, Aug 24, 2023, "it’s already breaking the internet. [...] Trump’s photo is significant because it’s the first time a criminal mug shot has been taken of any U.S. president or former president.")
Trump's historic mug shot released in Georgia election case (Axios, Aug. 24, 2023, "Trump has now made history as not only the first U.S. president — sitting or former — to face criminal charges, but the first to have their mug shot taken.")
Trump mug shot released after booking in Fulton County Jail (The Washington Post, Aug. 24, 2023, "The prospect of a former president’s booking photo leading newscasts was unprecedented. [...] Leading up to Thursday, gamblers were placing bets on various aspects of the anticipated mug shot, from what Trump would wear to whether he would smile.")
Trump’s mug shot is released, a first in his four criminal cases this year. (The New York Times, Aug. 24, 2023, "Mr. Trump’s mug shot photo shows a severe expression, contrary to what we have seen from a few other defendants, some of whom have smiled.")
Presidential mug shot of inmate No. P01135809 is stark in its simplicity (CNN, Aug. 24, 2023, "The mug shot of Donald Trump instantly became one of the most iconic images of anyone who served as commander in chief.")
Historic Trump mugshot released after arrest in Atlanta, Georgia (BBC, Aug 24, 2023, "Donald Trump has surrendered in Georgia on charges of plotting to overturn the state's 2020 election results in an arrest that saw the first ever mugshot of a former US president.")
Trump tweets mugshot in return to former Twitter platform X (The Guardian and agencies, Aug 24, 2023)

I think the WP:RAPID section of the WP:EVENT guideline supports a keep of this article for now, because there are a variety of sources, including news analysis and commentary that indicate at minimum, further time is warranted to allow this article to develop, because international reliable sources are suggesting historical significance, and the coverage is placing this event in context. Beccaynr (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – For now at least. A mug shot of a former president is notable per its rarity. Sources are good. Could be revisited in a year or two to see how this whole event ended.BabbaQ (talk) 06:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obviously notable given the extraordinary amount of press that this incident has recieved. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 07:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it is an important article to have given the significance of the photo. I do, however, think that a better title may be needed as the title is a bit off to me and doesn't seem like a Wikipedia article. Pacamah (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Unique event in U.S. history Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 07:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already has articles in foreign languages claiming it is a historic photo, and it has been tweeted by the subject himself as his first post-Elon tweet. Jane (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and support IAR close as a significant historical photo. Happily888 (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm surprised that there have been several dozen comments and !votes, and yet no one has yet mentioned the most important and relevant policy that applies here: WP:BLP. Trump is a living person and, no matter how damning the evidence is, he is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. It is extraordinarily rare (possibly even a first here) that a mugshot of a living person who has not yet been convicted is even in consideration for inclusion (perhaps that speaks to the gravity of the moment). I do think the argument of artistic/historic/cultural value is very compelling and agree that the sources appear good for now, but am not comfortable !voting to keep a non-convicted living person's mugshot up, especially considering it is non-free. Is keep without the picture an option? Curbon7 (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Curbon7, the vast majority of mugshots are not notable photographs. This is the rare exception to the general rule. This particular photo is notable. A mugshot does not equate to guilt, and the presumption of innocence should always prevail. Some editors have already tried to add the mugshot to Donald Trump and various articles about his legal problems, and have been correctly reverted. But I believe that this image belongs in this well-referenced article about this iconic and historic photo, which is being embraced by both Trump's supporters and opponents. This is surely an example of a case where inclusion of a non-free image enhances the reader's understanding of the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 08:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so. Consider it a reluctant keep then. Curbon7 (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Various sources, including Reuters, report Trump is contributing to publicity of the image, so WP:BLP concerns for this WP:PUBLICFIGURE, including in WP:MUG, seem addressed by the particular context that can be developed from available sources, e.g. "Trump wasted little time using the mug shot for fundraising purposes, posting it on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, as well as on his own social media platform, Truth Social." (August 25, 2023). Beccaynr (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A historic photograph, irrespective of what happens with his case. Much news coverage of that fact. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted above, its historical significance is massive and it has already received immense media attention. 172.58.111.202 (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only is the topic notable, but the article is well-written with a lot of interesting commentary on the photo itself, not just on the context for it. Deserves to be a separate article, one that will clearly be widely read. NightHeron (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article, FWIW — seems pretty clear where this discussion is going. (Some of the editors posting here seem to be arguing against the deletion of the image file which is not under discussion here.) The photo is historic insofar as this isn't Trump's first arrest and release but it's the first time he was processed, including mug shot, and released after posting bail like other defendants. I.e., it's the first time he didn't get special treatment because he is a former president. We used to have an article on Donald Trump's hair which now redirects to Donald_Trump_in_popular_culture#Hair — eventually editors realized that there is not that much to say about the subject. The mug shot is on Georgia election racketeering prosecution and on Donald_Trump with the fact worth mentioning about it, that it's the first time a former president had a booking photo taken. Space4Time3Continuum2x ^(cowabunga) 09:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's hair is not particularly historic, this image is, which is why there is much coverage about the image itself. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most comments in this discussion just look like they're saying the same thing. If the entire argument is simply "it's historic" then this article isn't going to last very long. There are many things about Trump that have made history that are just as easily mentioned in a section on his own article. He's hardly the first world leader to have had a mugshot too so I'd argue there's some clear Americentric viewpoints here. 148.252.132.248 (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do IPs vote? 2804:388:A022:4B24:0:4A:E310:DA01 (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
this isn't a vote... Rkieferbaum (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’d be more honest had they used their main account. 2804:388:A022:4B24:0:4A:E310:DA01 (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an account. I've never needed to make one. You're not on an account either so I'm not sure why you're criticising me for that. 148.252.132.248 (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the photo itself is receiving international attention and is already a historical photograph. I wouldn't mind a merge but there's already too much information about the photo and it's likely to expand further, so a merge with the article about the case would bring undue weight to the photo which is, by any means, very marginal to the case. So a keep is the best way to keep things tidy and clear. Rkieferbaum (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to Georgia election racketeering prosecution per WP:NOTNEWS. Yes, this has got significant coverage in reliable sources, but that doesn't mean we should have an article on it. For that it needs to have longterm significance, and even then it may be better to cover it in the article on the prosecution. The image was only taken yesterday and claims the image has enormous historic significance are premature. This is a very high profile news story and even small parts of it are likely to have substantial coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a news organisation and doesn't write articles on things just because they are in the news. Hut 8.5 11:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep firstly per WP:RAPID. This page was nominated for deletion only one hour after it was created; if a page isn't eligible for speedy deletion, then that is obviously too quick to either delete it or decry it a content fork as the nom rationale did. Beyond WP:RAPID, this probably deserves to be kept long-term as well as the photograph is likely notable on its own merits (using the weasel words like "probably" and "likely" deliberately because it's just not possible to know how notable something will be in the distant future, certainly not after less than one day, hence what WP:RAPID is for). It's not only notable for being a first for America, it's being covered around the world. It also helps that it's not just being described, but analyzed. But again, any claim one way or the other on notability is premature. We shouldn't be having this discussion today. Don't rush to deletion. Vanilla Wizard 💙 11:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: historically significant in the U.S. in and of itself – shouldn't be mashed into a larger article. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: my support for keep is weak-to-moderate.

I can understand the side of delete: The most important aspects about the mugshot certainly can be summarized quickly elsewhere. And not all “firsts” related to Trump-related norm-breaking need articles. If one thinks the more detailed analysis of the photo is not necessary to preserve on Wiki and that the only notable content about it is is its existence, than it definitely would appear that this would only need a short mention in other articles rather than a spun-off article.

However, the side of keep seems stronger. This is widely discussed with analysis occurring. So there is a strong chance there’ll be lasting notability. At the moment, it indeed seems on track for lasting independent notability that lies somewhere above the threshold on notability for the project. There appears enough content and independent analysis (with more coming) than can be successfully merged: the ultimate question on whether something needs an independent article or should merely be mentioned within another.

I would not have taken the initiative to spin-off this subject. But I guess that doesn’t mean it needs deletion at this moment. SecretName101 (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Georgia election racketeering prosecution per WP:NOTNEWS. A mug shot photo even as large as it is being covered is not indicative of notability for its own article. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW keep - why are we even talking about a article on a subject of great public interest with a vast number of reliable sources talking about how significant (and thus notable) the thing is, only 8(?) hours after the article was created? It's a weak article at this point, and the long term significance of the article and the events it describes are unclear. Instead of litigating this thing to death, better to let things take their course, see how the article develops, and *then* consider whether to merge or rewrite the article. Wikipedia has no deadline, as they say. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A snowball keep only works if everyone's on board to keep. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 20:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a speedy keep; a SNOWBALL closure here would just be an acknowledgement that even with some views expressed otherwise, the clearly overwhelming direction of this discussion is only going to produce one result. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Come on, this mugshot already has multiple pages of news articles dedicated to it and only it. Some of them don't bring up Georgia or the crimes that led to the mugshot at all, this photograph is historically relevant outside the causes that led to its creation and more than standing up for itself as a notable picture worth its own dedicated page. --Aabicus (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - this discussion was closed for approximately 7 hours on 25 August 2023. I advise allowing an additional 7 hours after the usual 7 days is up to allow for this. Waggers TALK 20:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's already covered in the uk guardian and the title subject of a newsagents podcast. The subject is clearly notable and we need time to see if it's a notnews case or an enduringly separately notable subject. Keep for now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Fairly likely to stick around, like covfefe, Bowling Green massacre and such alternative facts. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and obvious keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Mistakenly, I said my arguement on the articles Talk page but I'll copy-paste it here.

I believe its WP:Notable because he's the first president/former president in atleast 150 years to be arrested, although the mugshot having its own article is kinda Wikipedia:Silly Things it should maybe be renamed to "Prosecution of Donald Trump" or something like that, and have the whole page be about his arrest and the timeline and the events that occurred so people know what happened, sort of like Arrests of Ulysses S. Grant or, we could keep this article up, as the image is getting a lot of notoriety and fame, and there are a lot of Wikipedia pages about popular images or memes. sexy (talk) 20:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More sources include:

From mugshot to mugs and memes: Trump picture fuels internet frenzy (Guardian, Aug. 25, 2023, "the highly anticipated mugshot of the former president spread swiftly across the internet as both ends of the political spectrum raced to commodify and meme-ify the picture.")
Defiant Trump seeks to gain advantage by using mugshot in fundraising push (Guardian, Aug. 25, 2023, "The image flashed up on screens across the nation and ran on the front pages of the New York Times, the Washington Post and newspapers around the world.")
Trump’s Mug Shot: ‘Not Comfortable’ but Potentially Lucrative (NYT, Aug. 25, 2023, "“It is not a comfortable feeling — especially when you’ve done nothing wrong,” he told Fox News’s website in an interview afterward.")
A Trump Mug Shot for History (NYT, Aug. 25, 2023, "As soon as it was taken, it became the de facto picture of the year.")
Trump’s mug shot is perfectly on brand (Washington Post, Aug. 24, 2023, "Trump’s arrest photo now joins a dubious lineage that connects the likes of Al Capone, John Dillinger, Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Manson to Hugh Grant, Lindsay Lohan, Luann de Lesseps and O.J. Simpson.")
The mug shot seen round the world: Donald Trump’s forever photo (Washington Post, Aug 25, 2023, "Will the image be weaponized by Trump supporters and detractors? Undoubtedly. Will it become ubiquitous? Unquestionably.")
Shower curtains, mugs & more: Trump mug shot merchandise now online (ABC News, Aug. 25, 2023, "The historic image gave rise almost immediately not only to products offered by Trump's presidential campaign, but it also fueled a robust online marketplace, as sellers offered scores of products on online platforms like Etsy and CafePress.")
Trump campaign promotes mug shot shirts, mugs, more merchandise that read "Never Surrender" (CBS News, Aug. 25, 2023)

Beccaynr (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTNEWS Already included in Donald Trump and Georgia election racketeering prosecution and may be appropriate elsewhere. Create redirect to existing article. soibangla (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A historic photograph ImStevan (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: It's rare that we deal with something novel like a US president getting a mug shot. There will inevitably be substantial coverage of this news item for at least another week, but it's possible that the mug shot will become folded in with Trump-related legal battles and controversies more generally. Because we can't predict the future, I say we hold on to the article for now and come back to the matter in a month or so. For what it's worth, I think this will stand the test of time and will clear the WP:NOTNEWS hurdle—but that's a prediction of little value. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that perhaps a good proximate and recent precedent for this type of thing might be Dark Brandon redirect to Let's Go Brandon. Memetic images often subordinate to broader topics, but there's a lot more to this one. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This photo is so historical that it might end up in books someday, telling a part of the story of our times. Even though the mugshot in and of itself might not be enough for its own article, the situation it's part of and the big effect it has on society make it important enough to keep this page. In twenty years, someone could see this photo and want to know how things got to this point. This page will be a helpful resource for people looking for background information and context. NicolaM28 21:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historic free photo, thank you for obtaining it. I trust Wikipedia to archive it, so I don't have to file a Letter of Affirmation with Fulton County. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A historical photo given his role as US President, and easily passes WP:GNG; reliable sources that are secondary, independent of the article subject, and that provide primary coverage over this exact article subject (the photo itself) are everywhere and easily found. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - The article is not about Trump or his prosecution; it is about the photo. It is an historical artefact of unprecedented notability. Merge and Redir !votes do not appear to be considering that critical fact. This is far more like Hindenburg disaster newsreel footage than it is like any other mug shot in history. IMO, the nomination is also WP:RUSH. I do understand that this is about WP:NOPAGE, but I feel that it clears each of the three questions without a backwards glance. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The image is notable on its own, as demonstrated by the sheer number of independent sources that specifically regard this specific image. I am not opposed to using summary style to describe the image in other articles, but there is enough coverage and information available for a standalone article. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contribs) Don't be afraid to ping me! 21:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. Even images like Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten have articles, so why shouldn't an image of this significance have one? –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contribs) Don't be afraid to ping me! 22:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historic image that is a widespread media event at this moment. Rexxx7777 (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This should be titled "Booking photo..." not "Mug shot...". -SusanLesch (talk) 22:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COMMONNAME —siro χ o 22:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The world over, everyone knows what a mug shot is. Booking photo I think is more local; sounds like an artists headshot that the agencies give out when booking for movies and TV shows. Mug shot is in the dictionary. Booking photo isn't. Nfitz (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - probably not notable enough yet. Wait until the media swarm dies down, and then try again. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a keep for now argument - not a delete argument. Nfitz (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. When you have an article that does not definitely meet the general notability guideline, it should be deleted. If this photo gets sustained, long-term coverage, then fine. But, right now, it hasn't; everything Donald Trump has, does, is, will do or is doing will generate a media storm. As for now, delete or merge into the Georgia racketeering article. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First ever mugshot of a US president. Very historic. Chicken4War (talk) 22:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Forbes made an article on the debate itself. All I can say is "uh oh". LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh dear... –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | contribs) Don't be afraid to ping me! 22:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article, which links people to this page. We are way past "oh dear". I would suggest that anyone planning the join this discussion read the Forbes article first. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's a CONTRIBUTOR article, which doesn't mean much. In fact, its a source that's usually unusable on Wiki Graywalls (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, it's worrying, because it means even more canvassing than there already is. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of expected given it's something of great interest of the current minute sensationalism. Give it a month or two and things will settle down. Graywalls (talk) 22:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is suggesting writing an encyclopedia article about this discussion. But, Forbes Contributor posts often get a lot of views. People will be visiting this discussion based on that post. —siro χ o 22:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to imply that it was reliable, but it does give you a glimpse into how notable the photo itself is, if even this very debate is appearing in the media. From a GNG perspective... Well, I'll turn to the Dictionary of Irony: "re•cur•sive (adjective). See recursive." Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...and just like that we're that much closer to having an article called Deletion discussion about the Mug shot of Donald Trump article... :D Rkieferbaum (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This capturing of this image is an iconic moment in American politics and internet meme culture. There is no debate around its notoriety and there should be no debate around its validity as an article. I'm sure this mug shot will generate plenty of social commentary, both about Trump's antics and topics adjacent to that. Keep! Eolais|Talk|Contribs 23:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a historic moment in US politics and is worth an article in its own right. If it is merged with the Georgia Election Meddling page, it will likely not be indexed as easily by search engines and be more difficult to find. NSEasternShoreChemist, M.Sc.^{Questions/Comments?} 23:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything that needs to be said about this picture can be said at the racketeering article. No need for a separate article here. Also, arguments on the basis that this photo is iconic/historical seem a little bit crystal ballish IMO. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historic photo; I mean, it's the first mugshot of a President in United States history. Vast news coverage. But, I do agree with some of the above that it is a bit silly having an entire article dedicated to a mugshot. Would personally go with IPhoneRoots' idea. Iamstillqw3rty (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to literally anything. NOTNEWS, will quickly be eclipsed by the trial page. Worth pointing out the bit account Depth of Wikipedia has posted about this article on Twitter which has received 20 thousand likes so far.^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 00:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
L3X1, why should Wikipedia editors pay any attention at all to what random people on formerly known as Twitter/now X say about anything? It's all 99% foolishness over there. Cullen328 (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strong Keep. This is a historic photo that deserves discussion on its own. It would be immature to delete this article so soon. It can be improved; it's already being improved. But we should keep it, it's a part of history unfolding. District9123 (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable in its own right already. In addition, I don't think it runs afoul of CRYSTAL to note the practicality of keeping it as it will clearly get more discussion as it is used in political campaigning. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is arguably one of the most important photographs of all time, with someone who was once described as the "most powerful man in the world" being in a mug shot. Merging this with the Georgia case makes as much sense as merging Migrant Mother, which has a well-established Wikipedia page, with the "Great Depression." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lohengrin03 (talk • contribs) 00:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Something I've noticed while reading through these arguments is that many that point out the mug shot's significance could just as easily be used for other mug shot images. Mug shots of O. J. Simpson, David Bowie, Nelson Mandela, and even Joseph Stalin, to name a few, have all had similar significance, be it in pop culture or propaganda. In particular, Simpson's mug shot is arguably the most recognisable image of him, and has been used on merchandise as well as being subject to a controversy involving TIME magazine darkening the image.^[1] As this article is the first to be focused on a specific mug shot, I feel this is something to keep in mind for the future. There will be precedent from this. In Trump's case, it's still very early and we cannot be sure of its lasting impact, especially when there could be more mug shots of him to come, but it is certainly notable nonetheless simply because of its subject. 195.213.106.122 (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/25/us/time-responds-to-criticism-over-simpson-cover.html

Reply If you truly believe that any of those other mug shots have received comparable levels of significant coverage as photographs in multiple, reliable sources, then please feel free to draft articles about those mug shots. Cullen328 (talk) 01:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for above reasons. It goes down as the most famous mug shot of all time. 85sl (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep a highly appropriate article as the mug shot has already received significant coverage in its own right as a historic picture as the first and only mug shot of a US President. This is an appropriate WP:SPINOFF article as the article for the legal case is certain to become significantly longer in the coming months/years. Carson Wentz (talk) 00:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The mugshot is a piece of history, certainly more so than the Barack Obama tan suit controversy or Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories or Lincoln's ghost or Bushism. There are myriad articles about the mugshot, its creation and its interpretation. Even if there is another mugshot down the line, people will probably be talking about this photo for decades to come. Aresef (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - It's historic in nature and we have stub/smaller articles about things such as individual Presidential pets! conman33 (. . .talk) 01:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is about the first mug shot taken of a former President of the United States, AND it has taken on a life of its own in the public consciousness. There is no good reason to delete or merge. Keep is the obvious, only conclusion. RobotGoggles (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at least for now.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 01:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a mug shot of one of the most powerful people in the world, a never seen before occurrence in the History of the United States of America It has indeed already become extremely iconic enough to warrant its own article, with people on social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and Youtube turning this into a meme and even Trump supporters themselves have used it as a rallying cry. Rorr404 🗣️ ✍️ 🖼️ 🌐 01:47, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Not !voting because I found this through depths of wikipedia, but my general opinion would be to give this a while and see where it stands in a couple months. It's hard to gauge how well this will hold up over time. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 01:51, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to (arrests of former US presidents) with more content - The article is notable in content and context as its own due to it being historic in nature that it is the first time a former president had their mugshot taken. As for another reason, the effects the photograph has had on the American conservative base has yet to be seen for any effects (adverse high turn out for Trump or low turnout for Trump). The effects on the Democrat base however has already been documented.

As for the rename rational, there was a time that another president was arrested multiple times, President Grant was arrested for speeding and subsequently released. However, a mugshot was not taken of him as cameras did not exist, but a painting depicting him of speeding was created by the press at that time. He was also arrested two more times as well. There is even an article for this. Arrests of Ulysses S. Grant Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a very historic photo and will most likely be posted in history books. This is a first - a former president being arrested. ImYourTurboLover (talk) 02:07, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It can be revisited a few months from now to see whether interest holds up but for now this is a historical event, the only ever mug shot of a US President and it has been widely reported across all kinds of international media. BochiBochiGalaxy (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative option rename to (arrests of former presidents) and merge Arrests of Ulysses S. Grant into that article

Both Trump and Grant have been arrested multiple times, thus I think it would be wise to merge those two topics into its own article called Arrests of Former Presidents. A mugshot being taken is procedure of an arrest, thus there could be a mugshot image and related stuff from this mugshot page placed into that new article. As for Grant, a painting of him speeding was created on a lithograph. The arrests section in the indictment articles are small. Thus if placed into one article with a merge of the Grant article it would have enough content to be considered a valid article. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Speeding vs. trying to undermine democracy in the same article? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trump was arrested on four occasions and the article you're referring to is about the arrests of Grant more generally and not the image depicting him speeding. Covering all of that in a general "arrests of United States presidents" article wouldn't make any sense. Vanilla Wizard 💙 03:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Styren

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No establishment of notability with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 02:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mentioned in a ton of press releases, but there is no coverage at all that is both independent and in-depth. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Relatively standard professional profile, WP:NOTLINKEDIN.—siro χ o 05:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charley McMillan-Lopez

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Hack (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-This article is a mess from long-standing edit wars. As it stands, it does not appear that the player meets the most recent GNG requirements but I suspect that there are a decent amount of sources about the player that have been lost or overlooked along the way--Gri3720 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Shellwood (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution of Albanians in Yugoslavia (1941–1999)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTH article created by a sock that combines different events and decades relating to the Albanian experience in Yugoslavia and declares it a constant stream of persecution, contrary to bibliography/history.

It supposedly begins in 1941 at the onset of World War II in Yugoslavia and lists massacres of Albanians during WWII. However, reliable sources don't talk about Albanians being "persecuted" during this time. After Yugoslavia was invaded, various conflicts emerged between ethnic groups, occupiers, collaborators and anti-fascists. As this work by Florian Bieber or this one by Sabrina P. Ramet outlines, Kosovo was made part of Albania and it was Serbs who were persecuted by Albanians during this period as Albanians now had the upper hand. There were atrocities against Albanians, but there was no ethnic group that did not suffer, to varying degrees in the civil wars that engulfed the country.

During the 1950s and part of the 1960s there were major repressions against Albanians in Kosovo by the Yugoslav secret police who tried to suppress Albanian rebels, but after 1965, the conditions for Albanians greatly improved as they were granted more rights and autonomy; meanwhile the period from 1966 to 1980 was marked by "the domination of the Albanian group and discrimination against Serbs" (see again aforementioned book by Bieber p. 58-59). The 1980s leading up to the Yugoslav wars and the Kosovo War are a whole different subject, already covered by plenty of articles.

The way this article cherrypicks and coatracks every bad thing that happened to Albanians for much of the 20th century is completely inappropriate and misuse of Wikipedia. Certainly, the atrocities mentioned in the article can be added to other places, such as regional articles' history section or for example Yugoslav Partisans#atrocities and History of Kosovo, or articles of their own can be created for them but not in the manner presented here. Griboski (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Griboski (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a few options other than deletion. We could remove the disambiguator and rename the article to "Treatment of Albanians in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" showing the differing levels of treatment Albanians had as a non-Slavic ethnic group throughout the existence of the FRY. Alternatively, we could rename the article "Persecution of Albanians under Slobodan Milosevic" where we only highlight the treatment of Albanians as a result of Milosevic's policies, where it was at its worst. Yung Doohickey (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't anything that isn't already covered in other Kosovo-related articles. I'm sure we could also create an article about the treatment of Kosovo Serbs during different periods but we shouldn't be encouraging the creation of unnecessary and inappropriate content forking. --Griboski (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:SYNTH. First off, the dates (1941-1999) are arbitrary as there exists no scholarly work that discusses ethnic Albanian persecution during this period as a single interrelated event. The article collates various events in this period and portrays it as a single event. These acts of persecution are already widely covered in their own respective pages. Case in point, Anti-Greek sentiment covers Greek persecution in Turkey over a 100 year period, however no single page for persecution exists as each events occurred irrespective of each other. I do not see why this page should be an exception and the fact that it was created by a sock is evident in its hasty creation and violation of various Wikipedia policies. ElderZamzam (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Events, and Kosovo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Kunda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject has earned at least one cap for the Zambia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I wasn't able to find enough reliable sources for the subject to pass WP:BASIC.

82.35.44.68 (talk) 04:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At age 16, she was the youngest player in the 9th African Women's Championship in Namibia in 2014, per The Cable (Nigeria). The rest of her coverage on AllAfrica.com and equivalent news sites are genuine passing mentions (largely between 2013–2016) where she is named as part of various squads. Doesn't meet WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 08:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Robbie Williams. Just another reminder, if you are seeking an outcome of Redirect or Merge, please specify the target article you believe is most appropriate so the closer doesn't have to guess what you are thinking. Failing to do this will likely cause the discussion to be relisted until a target is specified. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Radar Volume 3

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was recreated multiple times from 2019 to 2021 with no notability demonstrated since then. It only has three sources, and two of those are to Williams's website, and the other is YouTube. I don't see any convincing coverage of this from a Google search, and while the first two volumes have a bit more out there on them that might make them notable, I don't think this third volume does. Williams having released notable recordings before and since doesn't mean this compilation is notable as notability is inherited, and so I'm requesting this be redirected so that there's consensus against another editor restoring it. Ss112 00:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Robbie Williams is a highly popular and significant recording artist. Wikipedia has comprehensive coverage of his discography. If Wikipedia is to be a reliable public source of knowledge, this album ought to be included in the artist's catalogue. Whether or not this particular record is 'notable' isn't really germane: Robbie Williams' entries on Wikipedia will be incomplete if this article is deleted. 81.174.241.92 (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherited to each of an artist's recordings just because an artist themselves is notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). We do not have an article for every single thing Williams has released, and the album will still be listed on his discography—it just won't have an article because there's nothing that has been demonstrated to be important about this particular recording. It absolutely is "germane" whether or not this album is notable because this is WP:AFD where we decide if articles themselves (and thus, their topics) are notable enough to keep. Ss112 03:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely redirect. It is not essential for this article to exist as is simply because it's a Robbie Williams release. The only applicable sources provided here refer to his official website and YouTube channel. A quick Google search gave me virtually nothing of encyclopedic substance, merely the usual retailer and streaming offers. If anything, the bit of information on the album can be moved to his main article. Lk95 (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Robbie Williams: Found a few announcement pieces ([24][25][26]) but nothing of substance. As SS112 already explained, notability is not inherited, so just because this is a release by a very famous musician doesn't mean it is automatically cleared for a place here. Disclaimer: I was invited to this discussion by SS112 (although I do keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs on my watchlist so I would've seen it when it was first posted anyway). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That article has barely any reliable resources/references to support its existence on wikipedia. I would recommend researching and compile as many reliable resources and articles to justify the notability of the album. Once you have done that, we all can surely revisit this discussion. For now, I am unison with other members regarding the deletion of this particular article. KARANSUTTA (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Cyprus women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Korina Adamou

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to List of Cyprus women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least eight caps for the Cyprus women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The most I found was this and this. JTtheOG (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Cyprus. JTtheOG (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 08:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/25/us/time-responds-to-criticism-over-simpson-cover.html

[1]