Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Natg 19 (talk | contribs) at 23:31, 25 August 2023 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Joyce (musician).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< August 24 August 26 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Joyce (musician)

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

Blues musician of questionable notability. Could not find any RS about this person. Natg 19 (talk) 23:31, 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! 22:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Woulfe

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

Fails WP:BIO. Coverage is mostly PR, interviews and WP:SPS sources. scope_creepTalk 21:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very clearly promotional in nature, notability still not shown. Please don't call all editors vandals. — Karnataka talk 21:12, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Burlington, Ontario

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

Unsourced list of almost entirely non-notable people.
Burlington is large enough of a city that its mayors would probably be eligible to keep good, properly sourced articles, but not large enough that its mayors would get an automatic presumption of notability on an inadequate article just because they existed -- so of the 28 people listed here, just six of them have articles to link to, but three of those are up for AFD as not really passing NPOL #2, one hasn't been put up for AFD but it's still debatable as to whether her article is really doing enough to put her on genuinely solid notability ground, and the two whose notability is secure are both notable for having gone on to hold higher offices at NPOL #1 levels rather than for having been mayors per se.
All of which adds up to a list that we shouldn't be keeping without solid sources for it. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a strange idea for a list even. Not formatted or sourced well and yes, simply being the mayor of a mid sized city at one point in time does not confer notability. Out of scope with Wikipedia and sure to make many dedicated list-haters wake up in a cold sweat. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:29, 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! 22:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Goldring

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, the notability test for a mayor is not passed just by verifying his existence, and requires significant reliable source coverage supporting a substantial article about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But there's no such content here at all, and in fact the article is putting significantly more emphasis on an unsuccessful candidacy for higher office than it is on his mayoralty itself -- but that's also not a notability claim either, and the article is referenced to a primary source table of election results and a small smattering of local-interest coverage nowhere near sufficient to claim that he would pass NPOL #2 on that basis.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the article from having to have considerably more substance and better referencing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 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 merge‎ to Virtual Pool. I see a consensus to Merge this article with Virtual Pool Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Pool 4

Virtual Pool 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Lots of sources in the article but no reliable, significant coverage. Only candidate I found is a Softpedia review: [1] (listed as a "situational source" by WP:VG/S) but even if it would be counted, 1 review wouldn't be enough. Mika1h (talk) 20:30, 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! 23:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

English Club TV

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

The article was created as an advertisement, there are several other copyright infringements and the name of the creator of the article is the same as the name of the channel, but abbreviated. LDM2003 talk to me! 20:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find sources to establish notability. Promotional in nature as well, would need a complete rewrite if notability is proven — Karnataka talk 21:14, 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! 23:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rob MacIsaac

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

Résumé-like biography of a civil servant and former politician, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. Neither mayors nor CEOs of hospitals are "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to have sufficient reliable source coverage and analysis about their work to pass WP:GNG for it -- but the referencing here is not adequate, consisting of two primary sources that are not support for notability at all, alongside a tiny smattering of "former mayor announced as appointee to hospital job" in the local media, with absolutely no coverage analyzing his mayoralty itself, or his work in the hospital job, shown at all. The article further makes a considerable number of completely unsourced claims that were added by an editor with an apparent conflict of interest as their username is highly suggestive of being one of the subject's daughters.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 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! 23:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd Berryman

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

Poorly sourced article about a mayor of a midsized city. As always, the notability test for a mayor is not passed just by minimally verifying that he existed, and instead requires significant coverage and analysis in reliable sources with which we can write a substantial article about his political impact: specific things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth.
But this just basically backgrounds a bit of biographical trivia before dispatching his entire political career with one sentence, and doesn't cite nearly enough sourcing to claim that he would pass WP:GNG or WP:NPOL -- and even his military background still isn't an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of sufficient sourcing to pass GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have significantly better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 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 redirect‎ to Pippi Longstocking. Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Nilsson

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

A character from the Pippi Longstocking books. A BEFORE doesn't seem to turn up much directly talking about the character outside of his role in the books, which can be easily covered by the main Pippi Longstocking article. There just doesn't seem to be enough substance here to justify a separate split. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:03, 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 redirect‎ to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies#List of unsuccessful federal judicial nominations. Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon P. Giampietro

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

Subject does not have the sustained coverage to meet the WP:GNG beyond his failed judicial nomination. I am not opposed to having this article redirected to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies, where his WP:BLP1E is listed. Let'srun (talk) 19:41, 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! 19:34, 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beshir Imanov

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. This person wasn't a general and a Hero of Socialist Labo, it is confirmed. Imanov was a colonel and a police chief (confirmed with notable sources) and hadn't any other remarkable positions and awards. There have been several discussions about wrong informations and questionable sources about this person in azwiki and as a result, this article has been deleted. This is the discussion for deletion in Azerbaijani Wikipedia Surə 🗯 19:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A person is considered encyclopedic as the author of military textbooks. He played a role in historical events and sources are seems reliable. Look carefully on the Internet for information about this person, maybe there is an electronic encyclopedia about him. Also - we should not judge the personalities of our contemporaries and the past by the same criteria, that is, I mean that there may be a lack of sources, because the press of that time reflected events in newspapers, there were no websites at that time. The importance of the individual is valid according to the personalities of the #Past. Redaksiya (talk) 11:56, 1 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! 23:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read multiple military textbooks and manuals. I never associated them with notability - or memorability.
Maybe the Soviets had better writers?
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at a browser translation of the Azeri deletion discussion cited above. Azeri must be hard for machines; my 2 favorite !votes were:
  • ”Have you given a voice in favor of the bark?”
  • ”Let it be wiped out: I consent with the hives.”
Much of the rest was less intelligible and I was unable to figure out the comments. Maybe somebody can get a better translation.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B., When reading the source here - Azerbaijani literature, it becomes clear that he also worked as a teacher.
I also read the posts on the discussion page for recovery. A reliable source like AzTV has a radio program about him, listen to the radio broadcast.
Significant participation in the creation of large reference publications, the preparation of textbooks for primary, secondary and higher schools, in demand outside the educational institution where the author worked. There are minimum requirements for WP:AUTHOR Jasulan.T TT me 05:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If he wrote other textbooks besides military textbooks, that’s a bit different.
In the West, military manuals are usually assigned to a person or committee to write. The assignment is usually more about who’s available than who’s an expert.
In the Soviet era, I’m guessing that anything significant, policy or tactics-wise, came out of some central bureau in Moscow, and wasn’t written by the local police.
These are guesses on my part.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 08:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B. It's worth noting that these statements carry an element of speculation, and the actual processes in place may exhibit some variations from the descriptions provided. In reality, the intricacies of such matters tend to be quite complex and multifaceted, making it challenging to make broad generalizations with certainty. I stand by my position, the article can be kept. Jasulan.T TT me 10:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said above, “these are guesses on my part”.
I haven’t had time to dig into the sources yet, so I haven’t expressed an opinion about deleting the article.
I was simply responding to the assertion that preparing military textbooks contributed to Imanov’s notability.
Show me the textbooks he wrote were somehow different from run-of-the-mill government textbooks and I’ll happily change my mind.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no proof that he actually wrote any textbooks, especially as the PR Newswire article that is copied in many of the sources describes the titles of medals differently from their actual names: Eminent among these accolades gleamed the "Sentinel of the Caucasus" medal in 1944, the "Triumphant Overlord of German Soil" medal in 1945, and the coveted "Supreme Servant" 1st-degree medal in 1961. These are mistranslations of the names of run of the mill Soviet medals awarded for participation or just having been in the military/state bureaucracy at a specific time given to hundreds of thousands of recipients. Kges1901 (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The names of the medals are shown correctly in the wikidata. 5.191.106.25 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He worked as the first deputy in the Azerbaijani branch of the Ministry of State Security of the USSR. Shortly after Nikita Khrushchev came to power in 1953, he was removed from this post and appointed head of the Militia Department named after Lavrenty Beria. Medal "For the Defence of the Caucasus", Medal "For the Victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945", Medal "For Labour Valour" , Jubilee Medal "30 Years of the Soviet Army and Navy", Jubilee Medal "Twenty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945", Medal "For excellent service in the protection of public order", Medal "For Impeccable Service", 1st class - The owner of all these listed medals and a person holding a high post of state importance in the USSR, I consider an encyclopedist.--Mehdi Fayyazli (Talk) 10:02, 4 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! 23:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course, I rarely participate in discussions, but I happened to notice that this discussion has occurred for the second time. It seems that information obtained from primary sources provides a more detailed and objective description.--Erokhin (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. My BEFORE indicates this individual is a nothing special run of the mill Soviet police chief that pleased their superiors and had the Soviet bug for medal collecting. All the sources I see fail IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject impartially, directly and indepth, and are just based primary or regurgitated primary puff. As for press coverage, you don't become a Soviet police chief without controlling the press per NKVD101, and biographies in Soviet era encyclopedias are just highly censored government entries for government officials. Nothing meets IS, RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  19:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO nd no significant coverage Worldiswide (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ficaia and Stifle It would be wrong to say that the person who worked as a doctor of technical sciences, author of textbooks and head of department of the USSR does not meet the encyclopedic criteria. Keep: Diverse and independent sources of information proves the encyclopedic nature of man. It provides the most complete and objective understanding, covering such important information as human life, education, professional activities and their impact on the environment. I finde a new sources 7news.az, icmal.az, shushapost.az, lobbi.az 5.191.138.252 (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can be Kept: Encyclopedias do not "force" the inclusion or exclusion of specific articles or individuals. The decision to include or exclude content in an encyclopedia is typically made by the editors or administrators based on established criteria and guidelines. These criteria aim to ensure that the content meets certain standards of notability, verifiability, neutrality, and overall relevance to the subject matter of the encyclopedia.
    Editors and administrators carefully evaluate the content to maintain the integrity and quality of the encyclopedia. They may consider factors such as the subject's significance, coverage in reliable sources, and overall contribution to the field or topic being covered. The goal is to provide accurate, reliable, and comprehensive information for readers.
    While encyclopedias strive to be objective and impartial, the final decision on article inclusion is subjective to some extent, as it relies on human judgment and interpretation of the established criteria. However, these decisions are generally made in the best interest of the encyclopedia and its readers, aiming to provide a valuable and informative resource. 5.191.113.161 (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The previous two 'keep' votes appear to come from the same IP range, and are the only edits by either IP. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:11, 16 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. There is a clear consensus to delete here. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mizzy

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

Subject fails WP:BLP1E. The article lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage, and is based on a flurry of coverage in the news cycle; almost all of it WP:TABLOID type sensational press. WP:NOTNEWS applies here. Additionally, the article has been heavily edited by either the subject or those connected to the subject and WP:COI editing to the article and the use of the page promote the subject is concerning. (see article edit history) 4meter4 (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (as article creator). Page does seem to be a magnet for both WP:IDONTLIKE and COI edits, but neither are a reason to delete (hints of WP:ATD). The significant coverage in reliable sources is clear and the subject passes WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE search would indicate significant coverage in BBC News as recently as yesterday, so I disagree there is a "flurry" of coverage, coverage is very much ongoing. I watch the article carefully and have removed any tabloid stuff (there is plenty). Notability is establised by non tabloid press such as BBC News, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Spectator and more, that high quality sourcing is already in the article.
Considering WP:NOTNEWS, which is policy and has four reasons to delete. 1 - original reporting. Nope, this is all sourced. 2 Routine coverage, also nope, the subject making headlines, the coverage is not routine, as per our definition. 3 - Who's Who which excludes people for one event and such like, this guy is notable for lots of events, 4 - Gossip and diary stuff, there is high quality reporting and analysis about the subject. Any careful reading of the policy would not support deletion.
WP:BLP1E is absolutely not met. All three criteria would need to be met, and I doubt any are. Aside from the fact that the subject is notable for multiple (similar, but that doesn't matter) events, he is absolutely not a low profile individual, thus failing criterion 2 of WP:BLP1E. (See WP:NOTBLP1E for more)
None of this matters less than the key thing: WP:GNG - which is met. Thinking of WP:THREE here's three sources that should make that utterly clear:
  1. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/06/disturbing-rise-mizzy-tiktok-culture
  2. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-65700125
  3. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/talktv-andre-walker-mizzy-b2351193.html
Of course, none of these paint the guy in a good light, but that's besides the point. He is exceptionally notable. With BBC coverage as recent as yesterday, we should not WP:RUSHDELETE CT55555(talk) 18:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is largely a negative portrayal of him, for doing "things" and getting in trouble with the law over these "things" he did. I wouldn't say that satisfied BLPCRIME, rest of his career seems not notable. It comes down to "guy does stupid stuff online and gets arrested, banned from social media". Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Family life is a small section, then the next section, then a looooong list of stuff he did and got arrested for. Being stupid online doesn't really make him notable. Could be seen as an attempt to shame the individual or as an attack page. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Oaktree has mentioned that the page is largely a negative portrayal of him, edit history shows this page as being in a constant edit war, including from Mizzy himself along with several sockpuppet accounts of his friends, constantly trying to add pages for his friends and even add advertisements for Mizzy's spotify and t-shirt websites. Mizzy is clearly aware of the negative image he has online, but is using this wikipedia article solely as a purpose to gain further online presence. In reality, he is not notable. Tiktok users such as Pinkydoll are much more notable online, and even their pages are being discussed for deletion. Having random articles about your arrest don't make you notable. Matan Even, the "Bill Clinton" game awards crasher, has several articles written about him, including several from this week alone, and he doesn't have a wikipedia page either. Don't let Mizzy just get away with using wikipedia for free ads. 2600:1700:89C6:2000:84CE:DEC9:9C9D:8543 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)— User:2600:1700:89C6:2000:84CE:DEC9:9C9D:8543 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep No shortage of articles regarding this internet personality - from The Guardian to The Independent to the BBC to, yes, The Daily Mail. Current delete votes seem to be factoring in quality of the page (or the individual the article is on) rather than determining notability. As in, simply because a youtuber is famous for "doing things and getting arrested", that does not discount valid coverage of them. Essentially, we can not use personal judgements regarding if coverage is about 'important stuff' or not (certainly many academic fields lack in practical importance, but there's no shortage of articles regarding fairly minor mathematicians and philosophers). The page is undoubtedly a bit of a mess, but that is also not grounds for deletion in any way. Page should likely be trimmed and potentially protected in order to prevent further abuse by both fans and opponents of this youtuber. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A MINOTAUR You have not addressed the policy issues raised in the nomination which are WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:SUSTAINED. It is not enough to show significant coverage of a BLP when that coverage falls within the same limited time frame and covers the same singular topic. Lasting notability is demonstrated by the subject being known for more than one notable event, and having coverage across time. Having many sources covering the same single topic in a one month time frame does not show sustained coverage and runs afoul of three policies named above. The sourcing is not sufficient to pass our notability policies in relation to WP:Biographies of Living People which are more stringent that GNG.4meter4 (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned above the BBC News coverage yesterday. Please also note coverage in Ireland last week and in Wales, yesterday
I find the suggestion that coverage all happened in one month, and that it was all related to one event, odd. Coverage is ongoing, spans many months and several events. CT55555(talk) 13:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either 1E applies here but primary and routine coverage are explicitly excluded from establishing notability, regardless of whether they're independent or reliable. All of the coverage you've linked to far is both.. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please say more about how you think Jason Okundaye's analysis in The Guardian, the BBC News reporting and the piece in The Independent are primary sources and routine?
WP:ROUTINE is defined as such things as announcements...Planned coverage of scheduled events...Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions...sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc.
I ask, because I feel confident you are mistaken on both counts. CT55555(talk) 16:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no analysis at all, so I can't say anything about the analysis. As for routineness, click the wikilink that says "Per Wikipedia policy". The relevant part is For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion. PST of OR links to the essay Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, which has the section "Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources?" Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC) corrected typo 04:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though reading that bit again, it does seem to cover crime logs as well, cf also WP:CRIME and the nearby section, WP:NCRIME. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't know what the various acronyms you are using mean ("PST", "OS", "cf") so that is somewhat hindering my ability to understand you here.
I think most people understand crime logs to be daily reports from police stations or or police forces with basic details of crimes. I think they are list or database entries with brief details. This is significantly and materially different from in depth reporting about single examples of alleged criminality in reliable and independent sources.
WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay that argues that breaking news should be considered "primary" and notes "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad". Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources." I don't consider this essay to be aligned with common consensus at AFD discussions where independent sources like BBC News, The Guardian etc tend to be viewed as optimal sources. Nonetheless, it seems like a moot point when even the essay does't argue against using such sources. Even still, The Guardian piece is not a breaking news story, but a piece of analysis. If we were to discount most news sources on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia would be a radically different from how it actually is.
WP:CRIME directs us away from creating articles about people accused of crimes if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.. There isn't. If anyone thinks any aspect of WP:CRIME is not met by the article, I think that they should improve the article, not argue to delete it, and I think that is supported by policy: WP:ATD. CT55555(talk) 19:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CT55555, sorry about the typo, it was late yesterday for me which is also why I did not do a full source review of my own. I have now corrected it. PST is a section of OR, and while primary sources can often in fact be the best sources for the facts, they are not appropriate for establishing notability. Both GNG and BASIC exclude primary sources for this purpose. Additionally, it seems fairly straightforward that news without analysis, that simply state what has happened, would be considered a primary source. While not explicitly defined so by OR, it is mentioned in many of its citations. However, if you want to dispute this interpretation I'm happy to take this to either a relevant noticeboard (probably RSN, as the RS guideline also touchs on the topic in NEWSORG, again, not explicitly stating it) or a RFC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I'm just kind of having a difficult time discerning how your argument fits into the policy links. This is not like local news or a tabloid, these are large articles from major websites discussing the individual, their backstory, and their cultural impact. To ask for verifiable articles suggesting notability, be confronted with three very solid articles from @CT55555, along with articles regarding the individual over the course of a year - and then say "Well, not those.".... I'm just not quite sure what would satisfy your criteria or why the bar would be set so high for this article in particular. These sources alone confer more verifiable notability than, I'm going to say conservatively, 90% of biographical pages on Wikipedia. I'm not even sure what the "singular topic" being covered here is, as there's a laundry list of items in this page. The break in? The Piers Morgan interview? "His content" as a whole?
I don't want to come off as harsh, but I'm having a hard time understanding the general 'pitch' of this AfD. A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A MINOTAUR Please see Beccaynr's comment below this. She did a better job at highlighting the relevant BLP policies than my initial nomination, and it expresses the concerns more concretely than what I was able to achieve. There is a certain threshold for when BLPs involving criminal activity become encyclopedic, and this hasn't reached that point. The coverage is entirely sensational and essentially WP:TABLOID press; even if found in normally reputable sources. This is a routine news cycle for sensational stories of this kind as not enough time has passed to indicate notability. We would need to see SUSTAINED covered (i.e a year or longer) that is not superficial (and these are) with neutral reporting (which these are not) that isn't sensational and designed to be click bait. When normally reputable media start publishing and behaving like disreputable media that is exactly when we need to crack the whip and enforce our BLP policy language and use good editorial judgement. A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I'm sorry my friend, but saying that coverage from legitimate sources, with legitimate subject matters that explore the subject in depth like The Guardian's "The disturbing rise of Mizzy: this is what happens when culture values nothing but attention" - as well as a smattering of other sources, are not something I am willing to write off or even consider for a moment as "essentially Tabloid press... even if found in normally reputable sources". I'm not really sure how I would come to that. The shoe simply doesn't fit. This is not celebrity gossip, there is no gossip occurring here. Setting arbitrary boundaries that happen to be right outside what the individual of this article possesses come off asinine and just kind of like trying to do acrobatics in order to justify the AfD rather than it being abundantly clear deletion is warrented ("Oh well sure coverage lasts for about a year... but I'd like to see it last for a year or longer..." "Sure he has 3 or 4 good articles from reputable sources but... what if they were more reputable? I'm not actually going to count a few of them this time. Could we get 6 or 7?"). I'm poking some fun at you here which I hope you don't mind, but you can see my point. Beccanyr's main concerns seems to be that this article is some hit piece on the subject - but that doesn't come across to me and overwhelmingly the page and citations within it are just providing raw facts about the individual who in this case is primarily known for notoriety gaining acts. In summary, once we start to say "Oh the BBC is a source.. until I don't like it, in which case it's a sensationalist tabloid" we might as well bin the website. Again, I apologize for any harshness but I have yet to see what I consider a solid argument for deletion and remain rather immutable here. Cheers either way. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are policy-based, including as broadly stated in the introduction section of the biographies of living persons policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
And this article, about an 18-year-old now banned from YouTube and TikTok, appears to have been built from a few WP:RSOPINION sources ("considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact"), such as The Guardian opinion about culture, an LBC source describing the subject as "Mizzy, the TikTok tearaway who has scandalised many viewers" [4], various reports of allegations and court proceedings, and limited coverage of the subject appearing on Piers Morgan Uncensored and getting 'screamed at' on a TalkTV show. And the coverage is not WP:SUSTAINED - sources in the article and this discussion date from May 2023, although I was able to find February 2023 coverage [5] of an arrest, with July follow up [6]; and brief January 2023 coverage [7] - so we appear to have less than a year's worth of coverage, a social media career (and related notoriety) now seemingly quite limited by various bans, and what appear to be low-level pending criminal charges that are not generating extensive or in-depth coverage.
Overall though, I am not saying "Sure he has 3 or 4 good articles from reputable sources but...", I am noting that in addition to the WP:BLP policy reasons for deletion, the notability guideline also outlines guidance for us to consider, even though a topic is the subject of news coverage and some commentary, and specifically when articles should be excluded as not encyclopedic. Beccaynr (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said already, but with regards to if the coverage is sustained, there was BBC coverage six days ago. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66607521.
I find the reference to opinion pieces difficult. In other discussions people argue to delete when there is purely news coverage, saying that if there was analysis they would !vote to keep. And here we have analysis. I see pieces like the guardian as a good indicator of notability.
I agree that wikipedia is not a tabloid. I see how LBC is borderline, but the article is written from reliable sources and I don't see this article as spreading "titillating claims about people's lives". (emphasis on claims mine) instead it is doing what wikipedia should do, relaying neutrally facts reported in BBC News etc. I don't think this is titillating, I don't think the sources are tabloid (1 source, LBC maybe), I don't think the content is about "claims". CT55555(talk) 12:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, available coverage does not establish a notable social media career for O'Garro before or independently of the pending allegations of criminal conduct and various related court proceedings, including some based on what appears to be a 2022 juvenile court proceeding, which is also publicized in this article. And now, due to various social media bans, to the extent there is coverage, it appears focused on e.g. brief round-ups of low-level criminal allegations such as the BBC report linked above.
O'Garro appears to have primarily had a brief burst of sensationalized attention from e.g. Piers Morgan; the article also includes what may be a WP:COATRACK about the BBC being criticized for what the article describes as "interviewing O'Garro to boost view numbers" [8] (aka sensationalism); O'Garro getting 'screamed at' on TalkTV in June [9]; the article also suggests an opinion piece from The Spectator [10] "praised" O'Garro [11], but it actually includes: "He does not deserve to become rich and famous off the back of his appalling conduct but his 15 minutes of fame should remind us that we are a long way as a society from harnessing the potential of all our citizens. He must do better but we can do better too."
So for this article, for this subject, notability does not appear supported by reports of allegations and criminal proceedings, two thinkpieces about culture and society, and three interviews, including one criticized for apparent sensationalism, another by Piers Morgan, and one where O'Garro is, according to the article, told by the interviewer, "You glared at her in a threatening fashion. You do that again, I'll drag you out by the hair." What appears to be missing are sources that permit the development of an encyclopedic article that is compliant with the letter and spirit (to borrow a phrase from Alexandermcnabb) of BLP policy; and whether according to NOTNEWS, NOTSCANDAL, or NOTPROMO, the short burst of attention, the basis for that attention, and the nature of the coverage further appears to support deletion at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reasons for deletion according to deletion policy appear to include a breach of the biographies of living persons policy and WP:NOT policy. The notability guideline has two prongs, such that an article can be asserted to be presumptively notable according to GNG but still excluded according to the What Wikipedia is not policy. This article began [12] on 26 May 2023 with a collection of opinion sources and news reports about allegations, but making apparent factual assertions of what can be commonly understood as criminal activity. Based on a recent source cited in this discussion (BBC), this subject is 18 years old, and the brief BBC report outlines a series of allegations. The current article [13] continues to state the subject has engaged in "illegal activities such as trespassing", and appears to source at least some of this to a non-RS WP:FORBESCON source [14]. The recent Irish Times interview-based coverage reviews what I think can be understood in Wikipedia policy terms as 'sensationalism' surrounding the subject, which is separate from simply being published in tabloid press - the WP:SENSATIONAL section in the event guideline appears to recognize that even reputable press can sensationalize subjects, and as an encyclopedia, we can strive to do better. From my view, beyond the WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE concerns based on the available coverage that appears to irreparably slant this article to negative coverage of allegations of criminal conduct and sensationalism, this article also seems contrary to the WP:NOTSCANDAL section of WP:NOT - this policy section includes, "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person," and it does not seem possible to develop a neutral and balanced article based on reliable sources at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was able to review the sources fully and thought there might have been some secondary coverage in the articles written about the interview, but it seems like they too merely restate what has happened. Not able to find any better sources than what has already been posted. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    delete it 2.27.242.224 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems like this article is just a list of arrests and court appearances. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MOtivated by your comment, I have make edits so that the article is organised thematically: family life, social media activities, legal issues, media appearances and critical reception. CT55555(talk) 13:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TikTok gone mad. Young man behaves unpleasantly, discovers that notoriety≠impunity. Story ends. Per some sound arguments already made above (Notably that of Beccaynr), does not meet the letter or spirit of an encyclopaedic article. Yes, national media coverage would appear to meet the bar of WP:GNG, but in this case I believe WP:NOT trumps that - and in particular WP:PROMO. And please don't tell me that he'll pass WP:SUSTAINED if he does something else unpleasant and/or anti-social. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of WP:PROMO do you think is not met? I'd much rather we improved this article rather than delete it (WP:ATD). Regarding sustained, did not notice the coverage of him in BBC News 6 days ago? That seems like sustained coverage to me, what more do you seek other than ongoing coverage to meet WP:SUSTAINED? CT55555(talk) 13:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd perhaps consider laying down your keyboard now and letting the discussion go 'free' for a while... Sustained as in something beyond being a minor and transient public nuisance with a desperate appetite for self promotion (WP:PROMO). Being antisocial and unpleasant (for no cause other than garnering online attention) is, last time I looked, not itself something that creates an enduring impact on the arts, society, communities, engineering, research, human development or in fact anything else that would confer notability on someone other than some passing, perhaps prurient, press. Oops, alliteration. We don't generally confer notability on YouTubers, I'm not sure why we'd do so for one who intentionally breaks the law to get attention - even where coverage, fleetingly, results. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG via WP:BLP1E. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You think Mizzy, the social media influencer, is a low profile individual (criterion 2)? I can't tell if you are making an incredible argument, or have not read WP:BLP1E CT55555(talk) 12:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think Mizzy is a low profile individual and likely to remain so. Having a brief period of fame for low level crime stunts does not indicate lasting notability on wikipedia or longterm significance (ie "high profile" attention) in the real world. I very much doubt the world will be paying attention after these criminal charges have worked there way through the court system, and its likely he will go into obscurity.4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOWPROFILE is only an essay, but it is widely used at AFD to help us decide if someone is high or low profile. People who take part in media interviews, self-publicity are never considered low-profile in my experience at AFD.
WP:NOTTEMPORARY is a part of a guideline and is clear: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. CT55555(talk) 16:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this user is low-profile and has no lasting notability except from a few random stunts. This does not meet BLPCRIME and therefore should be delete — Karnataka talk 21:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you have not participated in many BLP1E discussions at AFD. Metaphorically, read the temperature of the room. I think you will find that at AFD we do require longterm coverage of BLPs when evaluating BLP1E particularly in relation to crime; see WP:CRIME where it clearly states under our policy for perpetrators: "Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. It's a standard measuring stick and this is policy; not an essay.4meter4 (talk)
  • Delete. Per WP:CRIME and more generally, WP:BLP. But also, just a clarifying point, WP:BLP1E specifically does not apply here, subjects must meet all 3 criteria, and this subject does not meet If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.. I appreciate the folks trying to improve the article from a valid BIO/BIO1E perspective, but I think BLP and CRIME override that here. —siroχo 03:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. I originally closed this discussion as "Delete" but it was brought to my attention that I made a talk page remark back in May about this article subject that shows a lack of neutrality on my part. I had forgotten about my remarks but agree that I should revert my closure and allow an uninvolved closer to review this discussion. My apologies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unlike someone like Akinwale Arobieke, who has received coverage spanning many years, there's no evidence that this individual is going to be long-term notable beyond the initial news cycle, which has only lasted a few months, failing WP:SUSTAINED. I also agree with the WP:BLPCRIME concerns above. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Also a notification was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject TikTok CT55555(talk) 00:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't even know there was an 'Article Rescue Squadron', and have never seen these fell spirits invoked in an AfD before. Interesting magic... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a WikiProject that I am part of. A collaboration of editors who work to improve articles, especially useful for finding sources on difficult topics. I like the magic analogy. :-) CT55555(talk) 16:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Article Rescue Squad AWAY! I've not heard of this outfit either! Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider following the rescue list or joining the WikiProject WP:RESCUE, if you have an interest in article improvement. CT55555(talk) 03:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see also that it was brought up (specifically re. the Guardian article) that opinion coverage also interprets the base facts as we would expect analytical reporting to do, so this is a belated response to A MINOTAUR (and, of course, the later comment from CT55555 as well). WP:RSOPINION and the footnote in WP:OR that defines as primary op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces draw a distinction that is not immediately straightforward or obvious. It doesn't help either, that what scholarship on the topic (for example [15]) often take the distinction as a given without clearly explaining how to distinguish between the two. I'm sure I'm not the best person to explain this, but while opinions are actually in fact secondary to the facts, at the same time the are not reliable as an objective view of the facts. We cannot use statements of opinion as secondary statements, we can only use them as a source on the subjective views of whoever wrote or said that opinion. It's the same as Morgan's "an idiot" and "product of his upbringing". There are ways for analysis to produce statements with similar meaning, for example if a journalist goes and talks to some psychologists or reviews primary research on the topic, but opinion coverage and incidental statements of opinion are not held to such standards in news publishing. I'm not sure I can explain this any better, but there is quite a bit about this in the archives of WT:RS and WT:OR, as well as in RS themselves, most commonly news organisations. It won't provide a 100% clear line, because there is no such clear line, but I hope it'll help when thinking about the difference. Opnion pieces are of course, not excluded under WP:NOTNEWS but WP:NOTOPINION. (and I agree that the mentions of 1E are kinda terrible and serve more to confuse the issue) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:SUSTAINED and is still notable today. Too early to consider deletion Nzs9 (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you can state that...? The consensus above is that the subject does not pass SUSTAINED which is a policy that requires "longterm coverage" (ie coverage across time). That hasn't been demonstrated with this subject and the RS evidence which is all from a very short window of time.4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He was in the news for a few weeks and yes he got a TV interview out of it, but when you move away the media coverage of that time, he will be considered just another attention seeking social media personality who just happened to use crime for "clout". I see a case for a deletion on WP:1E grounds but he certainly fails WP:CRIME criteria. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sustained coverage for a period of months in practically all of the highest profile UK news publications is, in my experience, sufficient to get over WP:NSUSTAINED. This wasn't a single event; it's multiple events, so BLP1E doesn't apply. This is someone actively seeking public attention, so the "low-profile"/"private person" elements of BLP don't apply. Just seems like a straightforward WP:BIO pass. And who can resist a story of someone who harasses people for money and clout getting into trouble? Seems like there's the possibility of a merge target for a list of internet pranksters, list of internet pranksters who have gotten into trouble, or an article on the sublime schadenfreude of watching internet pranksters struggle. Ultimately commenting rather than a keep !vote because despite all this, the spirit of BLP gives me pause: should an obnoxious kid's obnoxiousness be fixed in the public record forever? I don't know. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I'm worried about. I mean he did silly stuff now, this could be used to debase him when he moves on and gets a career and family and stuff, later in life. Say he runs for office, then they trot out the negative wikipedia article showing how "unusual" he was in his youth. Notability for being stupid online isn't really notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has received significant coverage from reliable sources, so meets the general notability deadlines. Some of the coverage is from events over a year apart. This isn't just a single event. Dream Focus 03:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sources don't meet the standard at WP:CRIME as they are all contemporaneous new accounts, and are therefore not sufficient to pass WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLPCRIME policies. GNG is not the only relevant (nor most significant) policy argument here as the policy standard for WP:BLPs in relation to crime is more stringent than GNG under other policy guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 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 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! 23:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Pacheco

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

The subject has earned at least three caps for the Dominican Republic women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:34, 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 redirect‎ to List of Guyana women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kailey Leila

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

Redirect to List of Guyana women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least four caps for the Guyana women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:30, 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 merge‎ to My Bride Is a Mermaid. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Bride Is a Mermaid albums

List of My Bride Is a Mermaid albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article and I don't think that there is enough evidence of notability. Xexerss (talk) 17:13, 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 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! 23:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Teterai

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

The subject has earned at least one cap for the Zimbabwe women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:11, 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. Possible Merge or Rename can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of large aircraft

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

This list has no encyclopedic value. "Large aircraft" are defined by aviation authorities such as the FAA and ICAO, and basically include all the airliners, transports, flying boats, bombers and oddballs of any significant size. The class of large aircraft is huge and this list will grow endlessly over time. But it has no cohesion other than a bureaucratic designation. These types are better listed (if at all) within the various more familiar classes I just mentioned, such as the List of airliners by maximum takeoff weight.

There is already an article on large aircraft, covering their characteristics, history and so forth. It includes a historical list of the largest built, so there is no mileage in repurposing this list article along such lines.

The previous AfD in 2014 got tangled up while these and other issues were being figured out, and failed to reach a consensus. Now that things have settled down for a few years, it is time we revisited the matter. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Aircraft Wikiproject has been notified of this discussion.
The Aviation Wikiproject has been notified of this discussion.
  • Delete - potentially far too large and WP:INDISCRIMINATE a list to have any encyclopedic value. - Ahunt (talk) 17:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Size of a list is not a valid reason to delete it. List of aircraft list dozens of lists of aircraft divided in alphabetical order. And it is not indiscriminate since it only list aircraft that US Federal Aviation Administration classifies as large, and which are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Dream Focus 18:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:NLIST per "Further reading" section in the article. Has very clear inclusion criteria (FAA and EASA definitions) of three types. In the current list, every item is bluelinked to an article about the entry, so even within the relatively clear and strict inclusion criteria, this list is far from indiscriminate. This informational list allows readers to compare length, span, maximum takeoff weight, and other characteristics, so meets WP:LISTPURP. I'd be willing to help split out the "Lighter than air" section as it sort of confounds this list, but it may be able to be included with some work. I think an editorial decision to merge the Large aircraft § Largest built section and this list would be reasonable, but it is not necessary as an AfD outcome, at the moment they are built differently and such a merge will require a deeper familiarity with the pages in question. —siroχo 17:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I participated in the last AFD back in 2014‎. This article has far more things listed than the other article does, and more columns showing additional facts as well. There are hundreds of lists of aircrafts in Category:Lists of aircraft and its subcategories. This list has useful information, not just a list of names, so is more useful than most of those, and only list aircraft of a certain type. Dream Focus 18:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets NLIST per above, a valid topic for a list. I don't have any problem with a merge request, but this shouldn't be deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with large aircraft, there is already a fair amount of overlapping. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to large aircraft per above. Neither article is particularly large. Referencing is needed (and bolding explained - most probably record holders) for the fixed-wing table, however. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: OP here. I'd be happy to see a merge back in to the main article. The current "list of large aircraft" still only includes types which were largest in some way; neither its title nor its inclusion criteria reflect that, and those two things are what really need to be abandoned. But for the merge to happen, it needs to be recognised that the list of Largest built is going to dominate the criteria of what gets included and what gets dropped, and that will mean dropping role-specific stuff such as the heaviest military hang-glider, or whatever. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:28, 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! 23:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - but change title to List of largest aircraft, (just like List of longest ships). - wolf 09:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definitely Encyclopedic value and whilst the list contents (correctly) overlap other existing lists, this article/list provides unique value for those searching for this information. I don't see the value in a merging with other (admittedly very related) articles, but perhaps a discussion on a examining if there is a better name for the list. (For my opinion, I agree with @Thewolfchild above, and then it would benefit from intro paragraph describing many different ways to quantify "largest" (the longest ships list is only about 1 aspect of ships: length), not sure what the most ideal word is here though (Record-breaking? Of exceptional size? Notable? (<- last one is not very encyclopedic) ) DigitalExpat (talk) 06:18, 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! 23:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crescendo (video game)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Time III

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Unsourced. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 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 and no indication further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 14:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ultan Conlon

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:06, 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! 23:19, 1 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! 23:21, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colos (rapper)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If more RS are found, I am happy to change my stance. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless we can find sources in German. There is nothing in English we can use. "Colos" appears in everything from various African websites to Vietnamese ones, none of which are about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 19:05, 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! 23:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago District Golf Association

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. No indication of any notability. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:00, 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! 23:20, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Markets

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

UPE spam. Cabayi (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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vere Claiborne Chappell

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 21:53, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos communications

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. A single reference that doesn't have an inline doesn't indicate that this concept is called by this name. Fails WP:GNG, though a merge to synchronization of chaos would be a find WP:ATD. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:55, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unidad Educativa Bilingue Interamericana

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

No refs on the page for many years. I don't see anything showing why this school is notable, but then I don't speak relevant languages and have no access to sources in Ecuador so am prepared to be proven wrong. JMWt (talk) 15:53, 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 merge‎ to Durham Energy Institute#Geo-energy. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Research into Earth Energy Systems

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

Tagged for notability. No indication the references provide any WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:49, 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! 23:22, 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 Draftify‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beond

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

Beond

Airline that is about to begin operations, and does not pass corporate notability, likely because it is too soon. The sources include interviews with corporate officers, and what appear to be reprints of corporate handouts.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 Thetravel.com Information page about new airline - Reads like corporate handout No Yes Yes No
2 Simpleflying.com Information page about the airline - Reads like corporate handout No Yes Yes No
3 gulfnews.com Interview with CEO No Yes Yes No
4 Flybeond.com About Us page on web site No Yes Not applicable No
5 www.smh.com.au Interview with commercial operations officer No Yes Yes No

There is also a draft. This article can be deleted, and the draft can be improved when the airline begins operations and has independent significant coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The subject has been published on CNN
  2. The subuject has closed US$17M seed funding which was published on FINSMES Yahoo Finance
  3. And there are multiple other sources which can be used to prove its notability. link — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurathDubai (talk • contribs) 10:58, 28 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! 23:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify as per ATD and per TOOOSOON. Delete none of the sources meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The CNN source is based entirely on PR and interviews with execs and has no "Independent Content" sufficient to meet ORGIND and CORPDEPTH requirements (regardless of what has been said below). Announcements about closing seed funding are also run-of-the-mill and in any case are also PR (says it clearly on the Yahoo link), fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 12:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This airline has not yet proven itself as noteworthy. Im open for recreating the page if they gather further independent attention, though. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I expected to !vote "draftify" or "delete" based on my experience that startup airlines still not flying are usually "TOOSOON" and seldom notable. (Also, the nominator, Robert McClenon, is almost always right about stuff.) In this case, the CNN article is legit and, while positive, it's independent; the writer discusses other airlines, etc. I can't ignore it. On the other hand, it takes more than $17 million to get jets in the air. (Perhaps they've raised more since then?) So my "keep" is a "very weak, skeptical keep" based on a technicality and I'm OK if this article is draftified for now (unless the existing draft is better).
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the most part, the CNN piece is not "independent" because *all* of the information *about* the company is regurgitated from company sources. The last section contains comments/opinions from two industry experts (great, Independent Content) but (in my opinion) is nether "significant coverage" or "substantial coverage". It is also a requirement for "multiple sources" - what other sources in your opinion meets NCORP? HighKing++ 14:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a question about the CNN piece, because to me it clearly meets WP:CORPDEPTH: ~250 words of analysis on the company's business decisions and prospects. Can you say more about why you don't think this is significant coverage? Suriname0 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where precisely int the ~250 "words of analysis" can you see analysis about the company's business decisions and prospects assuming you're referring to the last section "A Niche Market". What precisely is contained in that section which you would classify as "in-depth" analysis *about* the *company*? Rob Morris spends most of his time talking about the route, not the airline, and doesn't make any mention that his comments are in relation to the airline. Mike Stengel's analysis is slightly better but boils down to only two sentences which we can see is directly related to the company (start at "By being tied to...."). This falls well short of being sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 11:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: “earned media” as I understand it is a term of art. Another way to put it is free publicity through news reporting. It doesn’t necessarily mean the news articles are churnalism on the one hand or reliable on the other. You hear this phrase a lot during political races.
When I used this phrase above, I meant it in this neutral sense.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you are applying NCORP criteria which apply since this is a company. Here's an analysis on the sources:
  • There are a number of CNN articles, largely all the same. The one you've referenced has been discussed above but essentially, the content about the company is sourced from the company (pics have been provded by the company for example) and an exec interview (fails ORGIND) and the two industry expert comments fall well short of what we require, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • The The Clayton County Register article is regurgitated PR and contains nothing new from the information published in lots of other articles which at least quote the CEO (e.g. the CNN article). Fails ORGIND.
  • The Times and Democrat relies entirely on information provided by the company/execs and acknowledges the information was sources from the CNN article - even to the point of copying the sub-headlines. Fails ORGIND.
  • SCMP article (archived here) is similar to the CNN article in that all of the information about the company has been provided by the company/execs (fails ORGIND) except for some comments from industry experts which fall well short of being substantial or significant or in-depth (fails CORPDEPTH).
  • The National News is regurgitated PR, borrows contents from Bloomberg and fails ORGIND
  • Maldives Voice article is totally based on PR and an event to open their offices. Fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
  • Maldives Business Times is PR, fails ORGIND
  • Travel Weekly is PR, fails ORGIND
  • Gulf News relies totally on comments/information from the company/execs. Fails ORGIND.
  • Arab News is PR. Fails ORGIND
Sure, the company is getting mentioned - same as any other company being launched, but it is all driven by PR and interviews. There are some industry comments which are Independent but these fall well short of meeting CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 14:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As described by A. B., this is earned media. Doubting a reliable source without any evidence and labeling it as PR gives the impression that you're searching for excuses to reject references. Arab News, Gulf News, The National, The Times and Democrat, South China Morning Post, The Sydney Morning Herald, all are in-depth and very reliable. If you doubt the reliability of a source, please initiate a discussion about that source on WP:RSN. Thank you. 98.97.56.73 (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Anon IP, just FYI but "earned media" invariably relied entirely on information/interviews provided by the company/execs, often generated by marketing activity, and not only fails ORGIND but is precisely the reason for the existence of NCORP guidelines to assist editors in assessing media for the purposes of establishing notability. It has nothing to do with a source being reliable and everything to do with the content being independent. HighKing++ 11:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A. B. I tried to dig a bit deeper. Answers given below:
  • Start date is defined: Nov. 9, 2023. Source: [41]
  • Yes, they have a A319 plane in possession. Source: [42]
  • Yes they have started taking bookings on their website. Try to buy it on their website
2605:59C8:4FE:F900:49DA:E762:4F72:CA69 (talk) 20:18, 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! 23:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify since it's likely TOOSOON. I agree on sources right now, the best source seems to be the CNN article above. But it has several hundred words attributed either to a founder or the company itself, and a lot of the other coverage is about competitors, predecessors, and the broad industry, so I don't think it can qualify for CORPDEPTH. —siroχo 01:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This should be a relatively easy call, it appears by all signs to be an active and operational international airline serving multiple countries. I believe the CNN and SMH pieces combine to be sufficient evidence SIRS is met and the vote is decidable on that basis alone. However in addition out of curiosity I went to the IATA database to see if they’re registered with an international call sign, and they are (it is B4) and I went to the airline website went to book a flight for November and was given a price and itinerary and flight number and prompted to enter passenger information and a credit card to complete the booking. Sure looks like an actual airline. 108.41.198.35 (talk) 19:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Anon IP. Just FYI, SIRS explicitly doesn't allow for sources to be combined. Also, no, it is neither active nor operational as an airline. Yes, they're registered but they haven't flown yet. HighKing++ 11:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SIRS actually requires sources to be combined in order to meet the criteria of having multiple sources rather than just one. Which was the point of that comment. The amount of employees required to get to the point of having those registrations, gates reserved at multiple major airports and so on requires active operations by any definitions of those two words. 157.130.50.206 (talk) 22:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello again Anon IP. Did you even read SIRS? The very first line says Individual sources must be evaluated separately and independently of each other and meet the four criteria below to determine if a source qualifies towards establishing notability. In other words, the opposite of your take on SIRS. HighKing++ 11:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. Each of them, separately and independently of each other, meet SIRS. They’re both significant sources of coverage and independent.
    The fact that there are more than one of them each of which, alone, meet the criteria creates notability.
    That’s because having one source that meets SIRS is not enough and as such to meet SIRS, generally, you need to combine them into the analysis to satisfy the requirement of multiple sources.
    My wording could have been better but it’s not really that complicated to follow. Since everyone is having trouble here’s a recap.
    1. CNN meets SIRS
    2. SMH meets SIRS
    3. The combination of 1 and 2 satisfies notability and the SIRS insistence on multiple sources not just one.
    Got it? Also you never know who’s a dumbass anon and who’s just an editor who just forgot to log in before commenting and now has to stay anon to avoid leaking personal information. 98.116.200.240 (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is the flag carrier airline of Maldives [43]. It is a discriminatory behavior to apply US-coverage standards on a small country like Maldives, where media standards are different, and also considering the fact that multiple countries' publications have already covered it in-depth enough. 159.196.171.101 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify (or delete). I'm inclined to agree with HighKing's analysis here on the CNN article. Limited to the 250 words of the independent content, I fail to see how it addresses the topic of the article directly and in-detail to the point where we could extract content usable in an article, and the same said for the SCMP article. The SMH article lacks such content entirely. Outside the sources already analysed, the best I could find were from AVGeekery AirGuide and The Economist but they were worse than the SMH article so did not make it in to the best three. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 16 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! 03:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sorry but an additional relist is necessary. I closed this AFD discussion as "Draftify" only to find there is already a Draft version of this article at Draft:Beond. Please voice your opinion on whether or not that draft should be deleted in favor of this copy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the draft in favor of this copy. That draft was created by a likely SPA blocked for a promotional username, and the draft is tagged accordingly. The submission was also intiially declined even before the creation of this article. This article seems to have been created by an editor with a more general interest in commercial aviation. —siroχo 07:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move this copy to Drafts I'd say too HighKing++ 17:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move current article (mainspace one) to draft, but I suggest before that whatever the draft has that doesn't sound promotional be copied into the mainspace article (for example the history section in the draft where the former roles of the founders are more elaborated compared to the mainspace article). S5A-0043Talk 07:54, 28 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 Holly McNarland. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chin-Up Buttercup

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

Unsourced article about an album with no strong claim to passing WP:NALBUM. To be fair, this was created at a time when Wikipedia's approach to the notability of albums was to consider any album by a notable artist to be "inherently" notable regardless of sourcing, for the purposes of completionist directoryism -- but that's long since been kiboshed, and has been replaced with the album having to have its own standalone notability claim (e.g. charting, awards, substantive coverage and analysis about the album itself) and WP:GNG-worthy sourcing to support it.
But this has no notability claim beyond existing -- it was Holly's "comeback" album after several years away from music, but didn't see anything remotely like the same kind of chart or award success she was having a decade earlier -- and cites absolutely no sourcing to establish notability on the basis of media coverage either. Bearcat (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:39, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CLACL

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

non-notable programming language ~TPW 14:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, there's like no results at all from a web search. For a programming project, there's no way for this to pass GNG if there's no mention of it anywhere on the web. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:10, 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 redirect‎ to Doctor Fate. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inza Cramer

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

Zero secondary sources even mentioning, let alone discussing, the subject of the article. WP:BEFORE finds nothing of note, just tertiary sources and basic plot summaries. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICT. IceBergYYC (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as nominator Seeing some suggestions for merge into Doctor Fate. The article has a decent bit of content I'm sure could be worth saving, I'd support a merge.
Comment, while I do agree that it's likely there may be something out there, until sources turn up, I'd say a merge would be the way to go. Given the subject was an incarnation of the Doctor Fate character and it would make sense to go there. If these dead tree sources turn up, I'll be happy to change my vote, but until then, merge seems to be the best bet. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:50, 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 redirect, but more discussion needed‎. There's clear consensus that the bio isn't notable, but simply insufficient discussion of the other title. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Culbertson, Youth Service America

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

Unreferenced WP:BLP written by a user with no other contributions, plus the organization he founded, tagged as an advert for over 15 years and never fixed. A quick Google finds no non-affiliated sources, which may explain why it's unreferenced. The bio reads like a resume (and had a link farm to suit until I just removed it), the organization article is an advert. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:04, 3 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! 07:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This could be a delete, but this is bundled so Oaktree's option needs more discussion to happen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More opinions needed about the organization. Both "delete" !votes only address the biography.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:52, 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EAST Initiative

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

tagged for insufficient sources in 2007, and the sources used are all primary ones. Couldn't turn up anything reliable online to support notability. ~TPW 14:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 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. A Merger has been brought up but no specific target article/section provided and there has been no additional comments to this discussion in the past two weeks. Further discussion can occur on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Island Yacht Club Antarctica

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

A club of some 25 hobbyists without any actual achievements, and without notability from independent sources (the "Antarctic Sun" is the internal newspaper of the US Antarctic program, and this club is just an informal group on one of their bases). As the Antarctic Sun article says, there also is the "first and only" bikers club in Antarctica (though there are no bikes), and so on. As long as it doesn't get this kind of attention from reliable independent sources, it doesn't belong here, but all I can find are blogs, reports from someone from another yachting club, Facebook, Linkedin, ... Fram (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Life at these Antarctic stations is unusual and they have many quirky traditions. It would be useful to have an article about these that might include the yacht club. That’s beyond the scope and timeframe of this AfD but perhaps @Germenfer and/or WikiProject Antarctica might want to take this on.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about merging this with the McMurdo station article, and adding some more info on "Antarctic clubs" born in the McMurdo station? It could be a sub-section of its own. Germenfer (talk) 09:46, 28 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! 16:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:51, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 15:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Blackwood

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Simply playing in the World championships does not confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

information Note: the deepest coverage I could find on the subject is this, anyone have different research? 2601:204:C901:B740:BC4D:4722:86DD:21C0 (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and that's a primary source. LibStar (talk) 06:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
didn’t know that before, thanks for letting me know. 2601:204:C901:B740:BC4D:4722:86DD:21C0 (talk) 07:12, 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! 07:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:28, 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. It doesn't like we're going to get a definitive agreement here on what to do. The suggestion by Rhododendrites to merge might be a suitable compromise, but that can be worked out outside of the scope of an AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Native American Guardians Association

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

Notability, Neutrality, Original Research WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The primary reason for deletion is lack of notability per WP:ORG. As a result of a s̵p̵e̵e̵d̵y̵ ̵d̵e̵l̵e̵t̵i̵o̵n̵ prod tag placed August 19, there has been a discussion on the article's talk page.
Neutrality continues to be an issue, although much of the non-neutral language and content supported only by the organization's website have been removed.
The remaining content is original research due to sythesis, drawing conclusions from the organization being mentioned in primary sources, generally local news.
WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, North Dakota, and Virginia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Politics, and Education. Skynxnex (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am still pondering this. There is a lot of coverage from a lot of geographic areas, including some regional newspapers, so it's not clearly all unreliable sources or ones that don't contribute to notability. I agree the article needs work to be more neutral and it seems like there's little coverage of the org other than at particular events... (As a minor note since I was somewhat unsure, WriterArtistDC nominated it for a Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, not WP:SPEEDY, see Special:Diff/1171091255; I mention it since a PROD was more appropriate for this article than CSD'ing it.) Skynxnex (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I spend 99% of my time creating content, so I did not know how to delete an article and chose the wrong process, but I hope that this is the correct one. WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against The organization has enough media coverage to warrant a stand alone article. the major problem was neutrality but as per the article's talk page that was resolved. there is no reason to delete the article. Scu ba (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Media coverage is the entire problem. Should an organization be deemed notable because its media campaign has had some success in being mentioned in primary sources? Is the creation of a WP article part of that campaign? There is no secondary source to establish that the organization has any independent support or recognition. Instead, several of the news sources quote other Native Americans as saying NAGA does not represent them. WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Should an organization be deemed notable because it's actions were notable enough to be mentioned by the news? Yes. that is the definition of notability. Scu ba (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is a complex concept with no definitive characteristic. Being mentioned in the news is the lowest level. With regard to news reports, Wikipedia is not a newspaper states "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...". That there is an ongoing controversy regarding the removal of Native mascots is notable, but NAGA's role in that controversy has not been established. The closest any citation comes to being a secondary source is a Sports Illustrated article that casts doubt on NAGA's authenticity as an organization.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This organization is less notable than they claim to be. Nor have they been transformational. -TenorTwelve (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete - appears to be a failed astroturf organisation and the cites are to their PR work. The coverage is scattershot with very little depth. Possibly there's an article here, but it would be considerably shorter and give the org much less credit - David Gerard (talk) 09:31, 28 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! 15:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note RE: Breaking news - The astroturf is continuing to be rolled out, and reported by local news without sufficient independent investigation to qualify as reliable sources for any Wikipedia article. An example from Thursday 08/31 is a CBS TV affiliate (KDBC) in El Paso, Texas, operated by Sinclair Broadcast Group, posting a story with the headline "Soros-backed Native American group praises Commanders president's refusal to revert team name". The group referred to is the NCAI, and the unsubstantiated connection to George Soros is the beginning of a making a false equivalency between NCAI and NAGA, the former being a civil rights organization founded in 1944, representing the shared interests of many tribes; the latter a non-profit founded in 2017 that does not have any secondary source to substantiate any of their statements as being representative of more than the handful of Native Americans listed in public records.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still wonder what you classify as an "independent investigation". Because usually media companies with things such as editorial boards tend to investigate the things they are talking about before releasing it to the world. Also what part of "The organization traces some of its funding back to George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, as well as other left-leaning contributors" is unsubstantiated, the NCAI lists the open society foundation in their list of backers on their own website. Scu ba (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See comment below WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments:
    • I see no original research or synthesis in the article’s current version
    • The article is well referenced by reliable secondary sources.
    • The Sports Illustrated article, while primarily written to spotlight NAGA’s presumed major funder, also covers NAGA in substantial depth.
    • Traditional local newspapers and media outlets in the United States are presumed reliable sources until proven otherwise.
    • I have never heard news reports by traditional local newspapers and media outlets in the United States described as “primary” before. They are secondary
    • We do not make a distinction between little news outlets and big outlets as to reliability unless proven otherwise. Instead we look at editorial oversight, independence and neutrality.
    • The article seems to have a slight POV against NAGA. That’s irrelevant to article retention. Cleanup ≠ deletion.
    • Whether this is some sort of Native American astroturfing group is irrelevant to article retention.
    • Whether NAGA are the good guys or the bad guys is irrelevant to article retention.
    • IRS form 990 returns are always primary sources. A possible exception might be any independently audited financial statements attached to the return.
    • Analysis of and reporting about Form 990 returns can be used as secondary sources.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:04, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference between primary and secondary sources is not the type of organization, journalistic or academic, but the level of analysis they do. A primary academic source is one that reports the result of a single study, a seconday source is a literature review which reports and synthesises the results of many similar studies, and a tertiery source makes an even broader analysis and places conclusions in an historical context. A primary journalistic source reports on a single event such as the vote by a local school board to change their mascot, a secondary source reports on the mascot controversy statewide or nationwide based upon an analysis of many such events, often with reference to independent experts. I have never seen NAGA mentioned in any secondary reports, although the SI article comes close.
  • When I first encountered the NAGA article it was mainly based upon references to the organization's own website and the creator's synthesis of many primary news reports. The current content of the article is the result of removing this original research as much as possible. I used the IRS filings as an independent primary source for the infobox, much better that the prior information being from NAGA's own website. If the current content is negative towards NAGA, it is because the reporting that remains includes comments by Native Americans that NAGA does not represent them. The proposed deletion of the article is based upon notabilty, not POV. Notability is established by reference to secondary sources, not the media's uncritical parroting of NAGA's press releases.
  • The bias in the Texas television report cited above is clear in their wording of the headline, which implies that NCAI is controlled by Soros. The NCAI is primarily funded by dues paid by it members. If it also receives donations from other sources, characterization of those donors as "left-leaning" belongs on an editorial page, not in a news report.

--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • you might want to brush up on what a primary source is, the statements that NAGA makes can be classified as primary sources, and the media reporting on these statements as secondary sources.
  • as such, due to the substantial media coverage, it classifies for notability.
  • the CBS report called them "Soros-backed", the NCAI is backed, financially, by the open society foundation which is run by Soros. Not sure how more black and white it could be.
Scu ba (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are misreading the definition you linked to and the WP guildline:
    • What NAGA has to say about itself is self-promotion, not independently published, thus no source at all.
  • WP:Primary "Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation."
  • The LOC definition is somewhat different than WP, but similar to historical research: primary sources are "original documents and objects that were created at the time under study". Yet there is the same caveat: "secondary sources, [are] accounts that retell, analyze, or interpret events". On WP, not having secondary sources for the interpretation of "raw materials" found in primary sources is original research. Historians and journalists may do original research, but not wikipedians.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And again, are their statements which are released by local media affiliates not reputably published due to the existence of the news affiliate's fact checking and editorial boards per WP:NEWSORG. Scu ba (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The news stories are raw materials, almost all primary sources of NAGA's actual activity on particular occasions, not what they claim. The sources that remain in the article have some balance, also quoting other participants in the events. The SI article approaches being secondary, placing NAGA's activities in a larger context of Native support for the Redskins and finding it to have been mostly funded by Dan Snyder, and noting that one of NAGA's founding members and spokesperson is Snyder's favorite Pretendian, Mark Yancey.
  • Not placing the contribution of the Soros organization in the context of the NCAI's total funding is biased reporting. NCAI's list of supporters includes business such as Walmart, government agencies including the Department of Agriculture, and 37 Native American tribes, yet this TV report picks out the Open Society Foundations to make claims that the NCAI is a front for woke liberalism (DEI).
WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't like the reporting or the way it was reported doesn't make it incorrect. Scu ba (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Native American mascots article, or selectively merge there. That seems to be really all they do, so outside of that, nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main articles on Native mascots are GA. There is nothing worth merging. I fail to see the point of redirecting a title to an article that does not mention NAGA. WriterArtistDC (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete (After going through the history, and especially after looking at the first version of this article and the talk page, the problem is not with SPAs and IPs. Changing from neutral to Delete. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC) )[reply]
With astroturfing groups like this we always face a dilemma. I am familiar with this group. There is no way to put this gently or neutrally. They perpetrate hoaxes, and if they have a WP article, they will create accounts, or do IP edits, to attempt to abuse the 'pedia to perpatrate a WP:HOAX to claim they are actually Native people, that Native people support mascots, and other untrue things. As far as I am aware, from investigations done by Indigenous researchers, they are well-known pretendians and hoaxers, funded by opponents of Indigenous rights, who routinely mislead the media to advance certain political agendas. Advancing these agendas is their paid profession. So, there are usually-reliable sources that contain misinformation about this group, calling them legitimate when they are not, because they succeeded in fooling journalists. This puts us, as Wikipedians, in a difficult place. We can either:
  1. Delete the article under the principle of Deny Recognition. Or,
  2. Keep the article only if there are sufficient sources to tell the truth about them, in a neutral, encyclopedic voice.
My opinion is that if we don't have enough sources to do #2, the best way to avoid being used for a hoax is to do #1 and delete. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 00:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also very familiar with NAGA, having edited the Native mascot articles since 2012. Their tactics are the same as Dan Snyder and prior owners during decades of resisting change: "I found one Native American Redskins fan, so I get to keep the name no matter what Suzan Harjoe, Amanda Blackhorse, and the NCAI says". One of the Natives he found was Mark Yancey, a founding board member of NAGA who could not reliable say which tribe he was from. However, I do not say the NAGA members are all pretendians, but there are only about a dozen in the IRS documents, and no independent source for their claim of 5,000 due-paying members, but the majority are certainly non-native sports fans, as are the thousands signing the change.org petitions.
    The racism represented by Native mascots is not a matter of individual opinions, but studies published in peer-reviewed journals and supported by the professional organizations representing the relevant academic disciplines. The current version of the NAGA article has indeed been edited down to a neutral reprentation (per WP:DUE) of NAGA as a fringe group with little credability or success at promoting its contrary viewpoint. This may be all they need, to be able to say there is a Wikipedia article on NAGA so it is noteworthy, but the woke editors are posting only lies and deleting the truth.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If IP editors make incorrect edits we can WP:ECP the article, it doesn't make sense deleting the entire article on the premise that IP editors might one day make incorrect edits. Scu ba (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we can protect the article if we keep it. And we would most likely have to. Just looking down both roads, whichever way we turn at this crossroads. I'm not so much saying it's a reason to delete, but some have considered the hassles a reason in the past. I tend to lean towards keeping something to tell the truth about them, but I haven't decided what's best here. Best wishes. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. Scu ba (talk) 23:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scu ba... I'm looking at your creation of this article. This opening you wrote is really not neutral, but seems like you believe their false claims and are promoting them. This is concerning. Do you have any connection to this group? - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 22:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote what was in the articles. I didn't put my own POV into it, but the affiliated CBS ABC stations might've had their own POV to increase clicks. Scu ba (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my earlier comments above(04:04 3 September) and those of others. This organization is notable.
A question that's been raised is: how's it right/righteous/appropriate/whatever to keep an article for an outfit like this. My policy-based answers:
  • Wikipedia is not censored
  • Wikipedia is neutral
  • Our article deletion policy doesn't have a provision for deleting on this basis.
As a practical matter, I don't think this article does the Native American Guardians Association any favors. It's not NPOV now but even edited to neutrality, it's still going to report awkward things. I think the organisation's foes would want an article here. It's the first place journalists and others will look when NAGA comes to their town. If I were NAGA, I would want this article deleted if I couldn't control it. It's too late for them to control it -- it's now on too many watchlists.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The relevant argument here is whether the article meets the GNG. I see a lot of discussion that skids past the sources and basically have two sets of assertions. What would help would be either a source analysis or a conversation about specific sources to enable us to get to a clear consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply - More specific than GNG to the notability of organizations (WP:ORG), the Primary criteria is: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This criteria is stricter than GNG specifically to prevent WP being used for advertising and promotion. If these criteria were applied to the NAGA article, all content would disappear, and almost has compared to when originally created. There is at most one secondary source (Sport Illustrated) which mentions NAGA but is about the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation, and supports the description of NAGA as an Astroturfing organization.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, they have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, aka local news reports, that are independent of NAGA and instead focusing on the Redskins and other Indian mascot name controversies. Scu ba (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum to reply above - WP:SECONDARY: "A secondary source provides thought and reflection based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." With the exception of the SI article, all of the citations that have ever been in the NAGA article are primary - local news reporting of an event, in which NAGA was mentioned in passing, not "significant coverage".--WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on wide coverage noted above, but should have a "criticisms" or similar type of section. There is definitely material out there which can be used to populate such a critique that would ensure the article is balanced and encyclopedic rather than being used merely for publicity. The subject is engaged in activities which the general public should know about with available references to support, and that makes it encyclopedic. - Indefensible (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Others have been editing the article during this discussion, and I have been doing cleanup, usually rewording based upon the cited sources or removing content that the sources do not mention at all. As noted, the article is moving towards being negative regarding NAGA, but this is due to accuracy, not bias. The organization is mentioned in many primary news reports in sources of varying reliablity, but the few that go beyond stating facts regarding an event either include statements by local Indigenous tribal representatives that NAGA does not represent them or actually represents white supporters of Native mascots that fund the organization. One source notes that NAGA has not received sufficient donations in a year to require submitting a full report to the IRS detailing their activities and spending.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The latest cleanup has been the reversion of an edit deleting SI cited content. WriterArtistDC (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The SI content was again deleted without explanation. Should I bother to replace it since the entire artical should be gone? WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The deletion was self-reverted. WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more try for clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not having been part of an AfD before, I don't know what a clearer concensus would look like. Frankly, the topic is not worthy, so I am not surprised there are few participants here. There are currently 4 for deletion (including one "leaning"), all offering comments specific to this article regarding lack of Notability, RS's and NPOV. There are three "keep", one by the originator of the article, who seem to offer inclusionist arguements that would make anything is the media worthy of a WP article, opening up a flood of astroturfing.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tough one. I'm sympathetic to the argument that effective astroturfing leads to coverage in minor/local publications (not to mention publications with a documented ideology compatible with the subject's). Fun fact: several of the sources cited quote this guy without qualification (or perhaps prior to the WaPo article). I'm also sympathetic to the argument that there are several sources which go into some depth about this group's activities. There's a good case for retaining some information about it, prioritizing the highest quality sources, somewhere. Does it merit a stand-alone article? It's borderline. What about a selective merge to Native American mascot controversy (again, preserving only the best sources). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have mentioned above that I am the major contributor to the mascot controversy article, which has been GA for years, and no editor found NAGA (or Mark Yancey, the "guy" alluded to) worthy of mention. The viewpoint that mascots are racist, not "honoring" is based upon peer-reviewed journal articles and books by professors in several disciplines, not the opinion of a fringe group.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does The viewpoint that mascots are racist, not "honoring" have to do with anything? The question is whether, if you take all the reliable sources about the subject of the mascot controversy, there are sufficient sources about NAGA that they constitute due WP:WEIGHT to include there. That's the nature of NPOV. Nobody says we have to parrot their talking points. If there's consensus there that it would not be due weight to include, that's fine, but it's based on sourcing. The merge could simply be something like "Organizations like the Native American Guardians Association (NAGA) mobilized local and national activists claiming to be Native Americans to defend use of Native American mascots. These organizations are not part of any tribe or other Native American cultural group, and multiple people involved have faced allegations that they are not Native American". Now, that may not wind up being an NPOV summary (I'd need to look closer at the sourcing), but it's an example of the kind of merge I mean. Doesn't the existence of these astroturfing groups (caveat: I can't find a good source that explicitly calls them that, so don't use that word) seem worth at least briefly mentioning as a frequently publicized player in the larger controversy? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appologize for the way I stated the issue. I do not seperate due weight based upon sourcing and my understanding of those sources as a subject area expert. The fact us there is really nothing to say about NAGA anywhere because there are no sources that mention the organization that come near to the academic and professional sources I have cited in the main articles on Native mascots. Most pointedly there is no secondary source to establish that the organization even exists as supporters claim.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course they exist, there is a verifiable EIN. - Indefensible (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exist as they claim. From the evidence in public sources, NAGA is less than a dozen individuals with a website, a PO box and a registration as a charity which has rarely collected significant donations. They claim to represent a "silent majority" of Native Americans nationwide who are honored by Native mascots, but usually fail because there are members of local tribes advocating for their removal. WriterArtistDC (talk) 20:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a little different than "even exists as supporters claim," but even so it does not really matter. Wikipedia can still have neutral coverage of a problematic subject like a hoax or fraud, that is why I recommended previously to include a "Criticisms" section. - Indefensible (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is currently little more than a list of failures and criticisms, which is all that can be established based upon the sources. This discussion is about whether the paucity of sources warrants deletion.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 01:09, 25 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. ✗plicit 12:29, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WISE Cup

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

Lacks all notability, only independent source I found was a blog, not a WP:RS. No Google News sources or other similar sources to show that this has received significant attention, and extremely few regular sources[50]. Fram (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP:SIGCOV is not met. A Google search, for example, barely returns NINE results [51][52]. It is telling that the article needs to rely on primary sources (mostly Facebook/Instagram posts and YouTube videos) to support even the basic facts. The COI/SPA/PROMO overtones do not help. Guliolopez (talk) 14:05, 18 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 14:10, 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. ✗plicit 14:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CHCO-TV

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

Notable only on local level; no sources. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest palaces (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW keep. Article has been demonstrated to pass WP:GNG and WP:NOT. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Impossible Quiz

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

Previous version was subject to this AN. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:03, 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 redirect‎ to Leaving Certificate (Ireland). ✗plicit 14:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving Certificate Mathematics

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

This article is an orphan and the content is clearly outdated. Furthermore there are no other articles on other Leaving Certificate subjects, for example "Leaving Certificate economics, business, Irish, English, etc." This article could possibly be moved to the Leaving Certificate (Ireland) article or deleted altogether. Edl-irishboy (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think it can probably go. The information is mostly either already in the Leaving Certificate (Ireland) or is out of date. David Malone (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the the Leaving Certificate article Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm usually in favor of redirect rather than deleting when we have a reasonable target like we do here. But in this case, it violates one of the main rules for titling on Wikipedia - WP:PRECISE. A reader looking here to find information about the mathematics leaving certificate in Britain wouldn't find any help. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Leaving Certificate" is most commonly used to refer to the Irish secondary qualification (a quick Google will show this), so I would not think many readers would expect to see any other nation's educational qualitifcations referred to with this term. Nepal's school leaving examination is called the School Leaving Certificate, abbreviated as SLC, but as the word "School" is used in the name as well, this prevents any mix ups. pinktoebeans (talk) 14:39, 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. ✗plicit 14:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessi Jae Joplin

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

Little indication of notability. Article orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 13:28, 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. I read the consensus of editors here that this article should be Kept. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kukaracha (film)

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

Prod contested, more sources added since Prod, but all of them are trivial. Still seeing no SIGCOV, zero passable sources, see source analysis. WP:GNG and WP:NFILM fail

Source Significant? Independent? Reliable? Secondary? Pass/Fail Notes
Literary Portal Red XN Green tickY Question? Question? Red XN A short plot summary of the movie and a passing mention that it is faithful to the book. Literature database that feels more tertiary than secondary
The Current Digest of the Soviet Press Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN A single sentence stating the story is "appealing"
Georgian Journal Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN A listicle of "The best-looking Georgian actors of all time" passing mention of the actors being in the film
Obituary Red XN Red XN Red XN Green tickY Red XN An obituary for an actress in the film, again a single passing mention of her being in the film
Los Angeles Times Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Certainly in depth of the actor it is a piece on, but again, a single, trivial mention of the film
Historical dictionary of Georgia Red XN Green tickY Green tickY Red XN Red XN Trivial mentions in a tertiary source, passing mentions as acting credits
Total qualifying sources 0
There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements
IceBergYYC (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 14:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 19:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. As an older film not in English language, not even using Latin or Cyrillic alphabet, this meets WP:NFO.3 by winning one of the most important film awards in the Soviet Union. The importance of the award can be established, eg by this Taylor & Francis book [53]. Apparently important enough that post-Soviet Union it's been replaced by 3: Kinotavr, Kinoshock, and Vivat, Kino Rossii. Note also that this film received the award prior to the establishment of the Nika Award. —siroχo 05:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets major award test WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:43, 9 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. ✗plicit 13:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remy Shittu Remy

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

Article about a non-notable politician per WP:NPOL. Being a council leader does not automatically confer notability on the subject. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Favourdare123 (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC) I did my best to seeing that every previous error that was mentioned about this article was Attended to. i don't expect the article to be deleted.[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 21:42, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Central Sierra League

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

None of these leagues meet the relevant notability thresholds. It's likely that WP:NCORP applies, but even the lower threshold (in terms of source independence) of WP:GNG is not met here. In fact, none of them have any independent sources that provide significant coverage of the individual leages. Articles included in this nomination per WP:BUNDLE are:

I've taken these from Category:CIF Central Section; if there are any others that belong in this bundle nom, please let me know. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 12:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note previous related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Yosemite Horizon League. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 12:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all except Hi-Lo League to CIF Central Section: Most of these leagues do not meet WP:GNG or any other notability criteria. However, there appears to be enough WP:SIGCOV about the Hi-Lo League due to the geography of the conference. [[54]][[55]]. Per the previous Afd, redirect all of the others to CIF Central Section. User:Let'srun 16:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • * Keep This is an obvious effort to wipe out this entire swath of content; to remove from Wikipedia the league structure of this geographic section of California. It then sets a precedent to wipe out this type of content across all the other regions across the country. Each of these leagues carries an equal status of the qualification path to section championships. In theory, over time, eventual champions will be fairly evenly distributed. Some teams and perhaps their leagues will excel under certain conditions for certain periods of time but this includes all sports over an extended period of time, at a minimum this leaguing structure will last a few years but most follow similar structure for decades. Some of these schools have existed and played sports for over a hundred years. All of these and all other similar leagues WILL qualify under WP:SIGCOV. How can I make such a statement? Because there are newspapers, broadcast media and sports specialty media everywhere in the USA. They want to sell their content. Sports is a staple of news content. Any media wishing to claim local significance has to cover the local high school sports teams, each of which will participate in these leagues across a variety of sports for championships year after year. The content has to exist. Under WP:N it would be called "presumed." Since I don't know this area well, I Googled a random league. I took Southeast Yosemite League. Here's [56] a Bakersfield Californian article about the relatively short history of this league and the long term build up to its formation. MaxPreps defines the league for football here [57]. Here's [58] baseball coverage, cross country and track coverage [59], basketball coverage [60]. And here is the wider metastasis. A kid from the league goes to college and plays in Missouri, so they mention the league in which he was a leader [61] and note this is from a previous incarnation of the league with different team structure. There are pages of results under the league name which can be found with very little effort. WP:BEFORE says before you delete, put in the effort to look. It's there. If you don't feel there are enough sources in each article, use your editing skills to put it in for your own satisfaction, rather than taking an uninformed effort to damage Wikipedia by deleting content you do not understand. I suggest this entire nomination be removed. Trackinfo (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trackinfo That Bakersfield Californian article looks like WP:SIGCOV to me, but it's not enough to meet WP:GNG on its own. Your comment suggests to me that expanding the content at CIF Central Section with that source and splitting into a stand-alone article if additional coverage is identified in the future is a very reasonable path forward. Can you say more about why you oppose a redirect here? Suriname0 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect all except Hi-Lo League to CIF Central Section I agree with Let'srun that these don't meet WP:GNG, except possibly for Hi-Lo League which has significantly more coverage. As such, Hi-Lo League should be considered separately, but nothing is lost from redirecting all the others. If any of the others are found to meet WP:GNG in the future, they can always be recreated then and only then. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although the redirect arguments are technically correct, I'm finding Trackinfo's IAR argument very compelling. I am not recalling the specifics, but we had a similar discussion about athletic conferences in a Great Lakes state several years ago that closed as a Keep. Google isn't the end of the available information as we all know. High school athletic programs in general are subject of great interest to the general public (at least in the US and Canada) and are generally covered very well in local media. Conferences are the framework of most of the competition. Things like foundation, termination, schools joining and leaving are going to be covered in some depth by the local paper and in most cases will get a mention in the state athletic authority's newsletter or blog and may even be the subject of a short blurb in USA Today or The Sporting News. In a practical sense, having articles on athletic conferences allows us to report athletic history in individual school articles more completely without cluttering them up with what are in the worldview minor information. We can just link to the conference article for that. In almost every case, it is possible to provide the readers with considerable verifiable information on, for example, yearly championships referenced back to the conference's website.

So, the TLDR version of the above is: there's a weak Keep argument based on presumption of local coverage and a compelling IAR argument based on utility. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I carried out searches for these nominations, but I also based this nomination on 1. the deletion of the referenced previous AfD and 2. my assumption that the situation would be substantially identical for all these cases. It's already been shown that at least one of the nominations shouldn't be considered with this nom, so I struck that out in the list above. I weighed the benefits of individual noms against the very high workload that those individual noms would have put on the limited resources of AfD. If it turns out that there is substantial difference between these leagues in terms of notability, individual nominations may be necessary, though.
I'd also like to address what Trackinfo said.
This is an obvious effort to wipe out this entire swath of content; to remove from Wikipedia the league structure of this geographic section of California.
I don't quite understand the accusatory tone of this. Large swaths of articles on inappropriate topics are frequently created (primarily by new editors) and often subsequently deleted if the community finds them to be inappropriate. Remember that Wikipedia is not a directory. The argument that All of these and all other similar leagues WILL qualify under WP:SIGCOV directly contradicts WP:CRYSTAL. Notability requires verifiable evidence, and editor analysis that a subject will certainly become notable in the future is unverifiable. Calling this nomination an uninformed effort to damage Wikipedia by deleting content you do not understand is unduly accusatory and hardly civil. I understand your argument, and the bundling of these nominations may not have been the best way to go. But it was well-intentioned, and I would appreciate some civility as we figure out how to proceed with this. Thanks for your work and your time. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 17:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: I am adding sources to all of these articles. Trackinfo (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please let us know when you are done. So far I don't see any WP:SIGCOV on any of these articles. Let'srun (talk) 12:05, 26 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!* 12:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 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.
I'm sorry this took me so long, I had other obligations rather than to spend hours on wikipedia. I shouldn't have had to do it for you. I believe I have added at least one source or more to each article listed above. As predicted there is local media coverage of each league. I tried to keep sources limited to discussing the league, specifically the All League players, which would be the kind of seasonal, routine league coverage I had predicted would be there in my earlier comments. That coverage goes back year after year if you want to follow it. This is the "presumed" coverage the notability standards refer to. Its there for every one, and for those pushing for a precedent to wipe out such leagues globally, its there for any scholastic league you look for. If any local media were to ignore the local sports, it would be a death sentence. If you don't find it for virtually anywhere in the USA, most likely it is your incompetence at google. Outside of USA, your media quality may vary. In addition to the wide view of the league, there is coverage of competition in the various sports administered by these leagues including national sport-specific media. Each school also self promotes the progress of their teams, measured by their place in league standings. If you press this, we can load these articles up with all of these other sources. That wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedia with a broader view. Pay attention. Sources exist and this quest for deletion should not. If you had looked, this "discussion" shouldn't have existed in the first place. That is what WP:BEFORE says. And the repeated failure of NOMs; to make nominations before looking for sources, is why I take such a condescending attitude. Trackinfo (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 bills in the 113th United States Congress. Spartaz Humbug! 07:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

H.R. 3584 (113th Congress)

H.R. 3584 (113th Congress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is highly questionable. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 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! 04:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trkaj

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

Does not pass WP:NMUSIC. I can't find much significant coverage. Maintenance tags since 2010. Qcne (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Oaktree b A09 (talk) 13:05, 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 redirect‎ to Vaina, Uttar Pradesh. Liz Read! Talk! 15:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Akshar deep Inter College

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

Previously deleted and still does not seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics) as primary schools are not often notable. Didn't find not one secondary source under news when I looked up the subject. Leaning towards redirect to Vaina, Uttar Pradesh if not delete. shelovesneo (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on notability: I'm just linking to the correct capitalisation. Wikishovel (talk) 11:57, 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. ✗plicit 14:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cocaine: One Man's Seduction

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm seeing mentions and database entries but nothing substantial which would meet the notability standards JMWt (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Entry in Hooked in Film: Substance Abuse on the Big Screen (2019);
Mentions in various books
  1. [62] ;
  2. [63], (etc.);
various reviews including
  1. [64]
  2. and last but not least, this one (in the New York Times).
Among other things. Notability is very clear and I'm inviting User:JMWt to withdraw this nomination.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
only the first and last of those could be considered substantial coverage in a RS, the others are simple mentions or in a blog.
The first seems on point, more than half a page in a published book. The NY Times piece is in a section of daily reviews of TV movies, so arguably is just run-of-the-mill coverage which could be found of many TV movies.
At best that's borderline. I'll let other editors consider whether the offered sources are enough for notabllity. JMWt (talk) 23:02, 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. ✗plicit 03:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammed Mu’azu Mukaddas

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

This article feels very promotional, despite having some good looking sources. I'm not sure it meets WP:GNG however. Osarius 15:03, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:10, 17 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!* 10:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources I find are him talking to the public about various things, nothing focused on him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:30, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASCAR drivers

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

This list attempts to list NASCAR drivers for all series. It's become bogged down and is overly broad (WP:SALAT), with some sections not being updated for years. Additionally, it cites no sources (WP:LISTPEOPLE), which has been an issue for over a year per the warning template. Additionally, this info already exists and is generally kept updated on each NASCAR season's page. glman (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided. While a current list of NASCAR drivers is helpful as a research result, that information can be found in the current seasons Wikipedia page. I believe it would be more helpful to restructure the page into a list of all NASCAR drivers ever, as opposed to this current season only. The lack of sources and lack of updates in multiple sections is another issue with this article. Quantum7021 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it's likely useful for readers as a common research ask. Incompleteness is a legitimate issue, but organic development of the list is naturally likely to favor inclusion of noteworthy members while tending to neglect the less noteworthy. Sandizer (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue is that the list is of the current season, past drivers are removed (theoretically) once the season is over. If the list were of all drivers, I think your argument is valid. glman (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no opinion on the deletion of this list but it was created in February 2001 in Wikipedia's very early days by Jimbo Wales and some might find the discussion about it on his talk page interesting. Graham87 04:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for sharing. Deep history there. glman (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambig-ify I agree that the current state isn't worthy of keeping, so I propose making the page into a disambiguation page for lists of drivers by season/country/whatever consensus decides is most useful.  Frzzl  talk; contribs  10:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would support this change and be willing to help create new pages. EDIT: or would it fit better as a list of all notable NASCAR drivers of all time, as per User:Quantum7021's suggestion? The current listed then could be other lists. For example, "List of current NASCAR Cup Series drivers". glman (talk) 13:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this change as well, with the inclusion that the list is changed to be a full list of all drivers to have competed in the sport, up to and including the current season. All seasons, beginning in 1949, have a section with information relevant to that season, such as the number the driver was in at that time, number of wins, top 5s, tops 10s, etc. Quantum7021 (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I worry this would end up too long as well, as we already have a all-time wins list, and many drivers had multiple numbers. Having 75 sections seems far too long and broad for a list. glman (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not believe this should be deleted. An organizational scheme similar to the one present at Lists of National Basketball Association players would probably be better for aiding navigational purposes in this area (Note: List of NBA players redirects there and List of current NBA team rosters is a subtopic).
    How we get there isn't particularly important, whether it's by moving this page and restructuring, or redirecting it once an appropriate target is in place, or through a more complex set of actions. Regardless, the title is not inherently unsuitable even as a redirect, so deletion isn't the right action here. I would hope that even if others feel otherwise, and do not believe the page title should exist in mainspace, they would at least consider userfying this or pushing it to some projectspace subpage given the history here. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and (potentially) Split: I don't believe it's overly broad, and the list, while perhaps a bit long, can be split for easier maintainability. Secondly, while each NASCAR series season's page has a list of drivers, the way they present the two are very different with this article focusing on the statistics of the driver over simply listing the actual teams. The fact that it's unsourced as of right now is also not a reason to delete as membership can easily be shown by anyone with a search engine. Articles are kept on the existence of sources, mind you. Similarly, the fact that some sections are rarely updated is likewise not a reason for deletion. All these problems are fully surmountable, leading me to vote to keep. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:17, 22 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!* 10:06, 25 August 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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I see a consensus among participants to Keep this article on the project. Liz Read! Talk! 23:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Antonella Roccuzzo

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

No evidence of notability, All GNews results are essentially about her being Lionel Messi's wife[67], Fails NMODEL and GNG –Davey2010Talk 21:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources available, see [68][69][70]. If deleted, I strongly believe it should be sent to draft or minimally a redirect to Messi. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They seem to name mentions only in the context of her husband being there. This is WP:BLP and it needs real WP:SECONDARY sourcing. The interview doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 08:00, 21 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!* 10:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm totally peplexed as well since its plainly obvious its allcoming from him. The test here what happens when they get divorved. I've seen this time and time again throughout the last twenty odd years. They get coverage for the divorce, appear for about a year or so as a human-interest story and then after a year of so, they dissapear. That happens all the time. All the fame here is coming from him. She was completly unknown studying to become a dentist before she met him and she would been a dentist if she hadn't met him. It is completly reflected glory and nothing else as far as I can see from the coverage. scope_creepTalk 21:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per sources in the article and here. Unfortunately, it's still common to view women as sidekicks of their husbands, especially if the husband is more famous than them. It shouldn't be that way. If a person is notable this should be respected. Still, it's not an automatic keep. The text needs to be extensive enough for its own entry. For Roccuzzo, both bars are met. gidonb (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if this is kept, it should be moved to the correct spelling Antonela Roccuzzo Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:12, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul D. Ginsberg

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

Doesn't have any WP:RS Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested on talk page, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 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, 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 redirect‎ to Tony Tan#Personal life. Consensus there is insufficient coverage for a standalone article. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Chee Bee Kiang

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. All sources are incidental of the subject. Unable to find any prior significant mention of the subject online or in the news archive at NewspaperSG. – robertsky (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Tony Tan as {{R from spouse}}. I agree with Cielquiparle's assessment of the suitability of a standalone article, but Tan's article seems better as a target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's no positive contribution to either Wikipedia or general public knowledge by deleting her biography, and no negative drawback to keeping Mary Chee Bee Kiang. None. At the end of the day, she's a national public figure. You may argue that it's a minor role, but she and her position are still national and public, and Wikipedia has generally protected the wives/husbands of national leaders from deletion (aside from a small handful of editors targeting similar Asian biographies and consistently try to delete these biographies). And, for the record, I would have strongly advocated against the deletion/redirect of Mohammed Abdullah Alhabshee, the first man to hold the role, had I known he was up for mass deletion too. Scanlan (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary, there is no positive contribution to Wikipedia as well for keeping an article that carries no WP:GNG and the same information can be sought for in Tony Tan's article.
    Also, there is no 'mass deletion' here. Only two articles were nominated by me, a Singaporean editor no less. Both are nominated separately so that each article can be evaluated on its own standing. I am pretty much aware of the perception of Asian BLPs being targeted for deletion, but make no mistake, I do not take deletions of articles lightly in general and have had conducted my research with local resources in hopes of shoring up the article. I was unable to find a single mention about Mary Chee that's apart from Tony Tan, that's even with Newslink, a newspaper archive of every article written in Singapore's national papers since 2001. (Access for Newslink is made available through Singapore's national library membership, which is virtually available to all Singaporean citizens and current residents at no or little cost). What I can conclude with my research is that Mary Chee is an extremely private person and was only present to accompany her husband in his official duties when required. She had no authority to exercise or even made use of the inherent intangible influence that a spouse of the President may have. – robertsky (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, per above. Brachy08 (Talk) 04:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spouse of the president of Singapore or redirect/merge to Tony Tan#Personal life. My argument from the Mohammed Abdullah Alhabshee AFD: "Not notable enough for a standalone article, but there will be people looking for info on this person. Keeping at least the search term will help satisfy these and also solve the WP:GNG issue." still stands on this article. S5A-0043Talk 05:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Tony Tan: Failed GNG but still notable for people to search for her. If there is any new references available in the future, we can remove the redirect then. JASWE (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agree that Tony Tan is the best target for a redirect and have struck my earlier recommendation for the main redirect target above. Yes, if more coverage about Mary Chee is published in reliable independent secondary sources in the future, we could/should convert the redirect back to a standalone article about her then. But for now it seems we should respect her privacy per WP:BLP and also, notability is not "inherited" or automatically passed from one's spouse per WP:NOTINHERITED. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:38, 16 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 Halimah Yacob#Personal life. I find the argument to redirect to the President he is married to stronger than the argument to redirect to the title. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Abdullah Alhabshee

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Almost all sources are incidental coverage of him, primarily on his wife who is the outgoing Singapore President. The only two sources here that are of him are [71] and [72], which are virtually paraphrasing of one or the other. A search on Google indicates that coverage of him are mostly him accompanying his wife during her official duties and trips. I am unable to find any significant coverage of him using his position to advance any causes as well. All information here can also be found on his wife's article, Halimah Yacob. – robertsky (talk) 09:03, 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. It is unacceptable to bring an article up for a new AfD only 4 months after the previous AfD was closed with a consensus of keep.‎. SouthernNights (talk) 17:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Soina

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

Insufficient in-depth coverage of the person; numerous promotional materials raise concerns about COI/Advertisement. Delete. Mozzcircuit (talk) 08:36, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Armbian

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

Reads like an advertisement, notability and verifiability thresholds not met. Pecopteris (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to do that unilaterally at this time, since I'm the one who opened the AFD, but if nobody closes this or objects in the next few days, I'll probably go ahead and do so. Pecopteris (talk) 23:09, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Pecopteris, the procedure you want is nominator withdrawal, but note that this requires persuading all delete supporters to change or rescind. 2406:3003:2077:1E60:2CDD:52B2:24E4:FE55 (talk) 15:27, 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! 23:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pecopteris, since you are the nominator, and your nomination counts as a Delete vote, it would be best if you crossed out your nomination statement (or part of it) and place this vote underneath your nomination statement. Right now, it looks like you voted twice so one of them has to be crossed out. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 2 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! 23:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MedAccess

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

No 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]

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]

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

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

No 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]

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]

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

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

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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.~TPW 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

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

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]

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]

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

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

Non-notable due to failing WP:GNG. 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]

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]

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

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

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. ~TPW 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

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

All plot and lacks notability Indagate (talk) 07:26, 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 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

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

1 hit in gnews and nothing in Australian search engine trove. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 07:09, 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)

8964 (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

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

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

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 [81] 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)

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

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]

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

W35DW-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

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

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

Lacks WP:SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources, the only reliable coverage I could find is [82]. 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]
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, [83][84], 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. —siroχo 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

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

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]

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]

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]

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

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

A 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]

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

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

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]

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]

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

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

Subject lacks a sustained amount of coverage to meet WP:GNG. 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

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

Subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJUDGE. Let'srun (talk) 02:34, 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]

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. —siroχo 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

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

This is 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]

  • Featured in Men's Health magazine [93]. 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]

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[[94]] (investigates the history of the business enterprise and includes content from others on twitter)
  • the Sun Sentinel Article [95] (not very long, but includes information not sourced from Butler), and
  • this Mirror article [96] 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]
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]

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

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

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]

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:
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]

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

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

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. 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. —siroχo 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.[97][98][99] 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]
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]
  • 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:
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: 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]
  • 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]
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. WaggersTALK 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 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:
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]
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 —siroχo 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. —siroχo 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]

  1. ^ 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]
  • 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. GrantAceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:04, 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

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

No establishment of notability with WP:RS Amigao (talk) 02:05, 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 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

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

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

Persecution of Albanians in Yugoslavia (1941–1999) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

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

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

The subject 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]

82.35.44.68 (talk) 04:17, 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 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

Under the Radar Volume 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This 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 ([100][101][102]) 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

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

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]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_25&oldid=1172255532"