Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< September 10	September 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 00:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Xe-NONE

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

Non-notable band. Only source is random interview posted to defunct site. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The corresponding article in Russian at ru:Xe-NONE has several reviews and other articles listed as references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:16, 29 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!} 02:29, 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!} 01:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and translate per Eastmain, assuming those refs are good. - Indefensible (talk) 19:50, 17 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. – Joe (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaka Union of Journalists

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

The first half of all the citations are either routine (two directories) or passing (an attributed quote). The remainder of the sources are not enough to establish notability. Bremps... 00:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, and Bangladesh. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "The Dhaka Union of Journalists (DUJ) is the biggest unit. The pro-BNP group has some 7,000 members with 14 units across the country" and various sources that can be located from a simple WP:BEFORE. One of the largest trade unions in Bangladesh, one of the largest countries in the world, representing thousands of professional journalists, is the type of article an encyclopedia should have. We should use WP:COMMONSENSE regarding articles such as this.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 00:01, 6 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!} 00:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Vinegarymass911 rationale and a quick search which reveals this is a 70+ old active and prominent organization that has been cited in numerous books and periodicals for decades. Recommend withdrawing the nomination. WilsonP NYC (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WilsonP NYC, please be specific about the numerous books and periodicals you found. It would help your argument to actually name those sources or even link to them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BEFORE, prior to this nomination “the minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Bookssearch, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search” and doing so for this article leaves fairly little doubt that this step was skipped. WilsonP NYC (talk) 02:35, 14 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 23:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Innovative Emergency Management

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

Half the sources are the company itself. Democracy Now! is marginally reliable, whilst all the remaining ones are fairly routine. Online search does not reveal any non-routine coverage, and the article reads as promotional. Bremps... 00:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bremps... 00:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 6 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!} 00:28, 12 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 23:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Ellison

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. I'm not seeing any sources of him for passing notability. Tails Wx 23:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, United Kingdom, and England. Tails Wx 23:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable detective that fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG, with no reliable sources on him.

FatCat96 (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unsourced article about a person who had a job, which is claiming absolutely nothing that would make him "inherently" more notable than other people who had jobs. I'll grant that since I don't have particularly good access to archived British media coverage from 15-20 years ago, it's remotely possible that he might actually have a stronger notability claim, and better reliable source support for it, than this shows — so I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody who does have access to the necessary resources can find enough to salvage it — but this, as written, is not up to a keepable standard at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:07, 17 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 23:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Barnett

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. No significant coverage. 2 of the 4 sources are her own website. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ARTIST. The article is stale, but there in no way to update with reliable sources. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:08, 17 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 23:37, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Divorce Reform

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

Obscure special interest group that does not pass the notability guidelines for companies/organizations. Graywalls (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Companies, Websites, United States of America, and Iowa. Graywalls (talk) 23:38, 11 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. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article has almost 0 substance, and only 3 references from 2 sources, which are both dictionaries. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Internet. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 18:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to SMS language, which mentions this term in its list of terms. BD2412 T 23:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a good resolution at all. It violates the principal of least astonishment, and even if it took the user to the right place in the article there's no definition there so it still isn't as useful as it could be. Additionally use of this term isn't specific to SMS, so it's misleading. See below for better alternative. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Either delete or~~ Redirect to Wiktionary (wikt:tl;dr). Per nom; WP:NOTDICT, and article doesn't have any obvious potential to grow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danbloch (talk • contribs) 04:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Danbloch: Agreed. In my opinion, it should be a soft redirect to wikt:tl;dr or similar with the {{Wiktionary redirect}} template. --QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 09:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, on further thought the redirect would be of value. Dan Bloch (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without a redirect, soft or otherwise. I agree with the overall notion to delete as a DICDEF. However, there's no obvious target (it has far more use than just in text messages as suggested above). Having a redirect in place tends to inhibit searching article space for this text. You can still do it, but it takes an extra nonobvious step. And for those unaware, the search result page ([1]) already brings up a Wiktionary link right at the top. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Wiktionary not an obvious target? Dan Bloch (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary redirects are harmful. Having one in place makes trying to search article space for the term sitting at the redirect title more difficult. Couple that with the fact that they're also not particularly useful, because if no page exists at the title, the user searching for the term gets search results, which already include a Wiktionary link if one exists...see the link in my comment above. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then yeah, maybe delete without redirect. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 17:42, 8 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!} 23:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand (or maybe draftify): There's nothing in WP:NOTDICT that says we can't have an encyclopedic article about a term. In fact we do have some: e.g. gay or TERF (acronym). This article is definitely not up to snuff as is, but I strongly suspect that there's enough material out there about the history of the term to make an article out of it. Loki (talk) 05:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LokiTheLiar: I mean, the article doesn't really have much other than DICDEF in its current condition, and I struggled to find any reliable (non-dictionary) sources about the term .

I never said that there shouldn't be articles about terms, just if they're notable enough, and aren't just basically Wiktionary entries. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 22:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy link: Google:TL;DR QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 22:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Analysis
The term "TL;DR" has been discussed in numerous reliable sources:
1. A study of "the real world 'tl;dr' phenomenon" in a peer-reviewed journal (Forrin et al. 2020)
2. The etiquette of using TL;DR (Vincent 2022)
4. When using TL;DR is rude. When using TL;DR is not rude (Kryger 2023)
5. The origins of TL;DR (Hiscott 2014, Crutcher 2019, and Chatfield 2013)
6. How TL;DR "spread to other online forums" (Hiscott 2014)
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There is enough information about the history, social, and cultural aspects of TL;DR to support an encyclopedic article about the topic such that this would not violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a dictionary or Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal.
The current article is well-sourced and does not violate any policies. The article can be expanded and improved. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Editing and discussion, the article should be kept.
Sources
1. Vincent, Sarah (2022-11-17). "What Exactly Does TL;DR Mean, and How Should You Use It?". Reader's Digest. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  The article notes: "TL;DR (also sometimes seen without the semicolon as TLDR) means “too long; didn’t read.” It’s an abbreviation that you’ll frequently find at the end of internet communications, usually ones with a lot of text. It’s a phrase that basically means “summary” and is followed by a short, one- or two-line overview for people who may not have read every word of a long chunk of text. ... Is TL;DR rude? No, it isn’t rude. But like any abbreviation, there’s a time and a place for it; there are different etiquette rules for formal and less formal situations. It’s OK to use it on social media, with your friends or in a quick, informal note to a coworker. But an important email, a big presentation or a business proposal is not the time to use slang or abbreviations of any kind."
2. Kryger, Kelsey (2023-03-23). "What Does 'TL;DR' Mean? Plus, Here's When You'll Definitely Want To Avoid Using It". Parade. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  The article has these sections:
  1. What Does TL;DR Mean?
  2. How Do You Use TL;DR?
  3. What Is TL;DR on Social Media
  4. Why Do People Put TL;DR at the End? Is TL;DR Rude?
  5. What Can You Say Besides TL;DR?
3. Forrin, Noah D.; Mills, Caitlin; D'Mello, Sidney K.; Risko, Evan F.; Smilek, Daniel; Seli, Paul (2020-06-09). "TL;DR: Longer Sections of Text Increase Rates of Unintentional Mind-Wandering". The Journal of Experimental Education. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.1080/00220973.2020.1751578. ISSN 0022-0973. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  The journal article notes: "One such textual feature is the length of sections in which a given text is presented. The growing use of the short form “tl;dr”—which stands for “too long; didn’t read”—suggests that people may be more likely to attend to bite-sized segments of information (e.g., Twitter posts, news-bites) compared to longer chunks of information (e.g., long paragraphs in a news article). ... Recent empirical work (Forrin et al., 2018, 2019) tested for the existence of this “tl;dr” phenomenon in an educational context. ... Here, we examined the role of intentionality in peoples’ tendency to mind-wander more often while reading longer vs. shorter sections of text. Our goal was to help elucidate whether this effect—which is related to the real world “tl;dr” phenomenon—reflects the intentional or unintentional disengagement of attention from passages with relatively long sections of text."
4. Hiscott, Rebecca (2014-07-17). "LOL, WTF? The Origin Stories Of Your Favorite Internet Acronyms". HuffPost. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  The article notes: "There’s no better sign of our times than Internet shorthand that demands writing be as short as possible. "TL;DR" likely originated on the comedy forum Something Awful around 2002, and spread to other online forums like 4chan, Slashdot and Reddit. The first Urban Dictionary definition for TL;DR appeared in 2003, and it earned its own Wikipedia page in 2007."
5. Mohr, Melissa (2020-05-07). "Venturing into the land of social media acronyms. "Tl;dr" is the only internet abbreviation I know of that boasts a perfectly used semicolon. Where did the acronym originate?". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  The article notes: "In her April 5, 2020, Wordplay column, Deb Amlen hides the puzzle’s theme behind a link: “Tl;dr (Spoiler!).” I had to find out more about this one. It is the only internet abbreviation I know of that boasts a perfectly used semicolon, although it seems that few people use the semicolon any longer. Tl;dr stands for “too long; didn’t read” and it seems to have begun in the early 2000s. It is hard to read large chunks of text online, so someone who posts, say, a 10-paragraph essay on her theories about “Star Trek” might receive a disgruntled tl;dr (or tldr) in response. Or she might realize she had gone on too long and acknowledge the fact by typing tldr at the end."
6. Brigham, Katie (2013-08-09). "My favorite acronyms". Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Another one of these great time-saving acronyms is tl;dr. This means, "Too Long; Didn't Read." Apparently, tl;dr originated in online discussion forums as a way for users to aggressively respond to posts deemed unnecessarily long or preachy. Yet from these hostile beginnings, the acronym has blossomed. Now, it occasionally takes on a nicer tone, in which self-aware users invoke the phrase at the end of their own long message. This is then followed by a highly truncated and very convenient summary of their main points."
7. Crutcher, Paul (2019-09-29). "Paul Crutcher: Don't bore us, get to the chorus". Index-Journal. Archived from the original on 2023-09-18. Retrieved 2023-09-18 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "Deep in the belly of many internet comment threads you will sometimes see the letters “tl:dr.” Birthed on the web in 2002, these initials simply mean “too long: didn’t read.” In other words, either my time is limited or my attention span is too short to read the entire article or thread or theory or propaganda piece. So, “tl:dr” often is accompanied by a short summary of the longer material."
8. Chatfield, Tom (2013). "TL;DR". Netymology: From Apps to Zombies: A Linguistic Celebration of the Digital World. New York: Quercus. pp. 156–158. ISBN 978-1-623-65165-7. Retrieved 2023-09-18 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Words are cheap online, and sometimes there are simply too many of them. It’s for such circumstances that the five characters “TL;DR” have developed as a staple of online discussions. They stand for the phrase “Too Long; Didn’t Read,” and are traditionally deployed as a response to an excessively long piece of comment or argument in an online debate (or as a humorous way of asking someone to stop waffling and get to the point). TL;DR is an interesting acronym, not least because it’s one of the very few to contain a semicolon—a hint at its likely origins among the ranks of editors on Wikipedia and members of other less high-minded online forums like FARK, where it first began frequently to be used around 2003. One unusual variation on TL;DR is an animated image of a teal deer— sometimes used in online postings due to their similar pronunciation—but the ethos it embodies today is more often expressed both without the “official” semicolon and in deliberate haste."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TL;DR to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is expandable beyond a dictionary definition. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:39, 18 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. Of note is that the nominator was indefinitely blocked on 31 August 2023 (UTC). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smokescreen (Transformers)

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

[2] No coverage by reliable, notable independent sources, I only see fansites like seibertron or tformers talking about Smokescreen's toys or reviewing an episode of a TV show with him. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Toys. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep due to questionable motives of nominator and flood of similar nominations leaving no time for anyone to do non-Google research. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete covered by zero RS's. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of The Transformers (TV series) characters unless more sources are found. BOZ (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the discussion must still run its course but it is worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for persistent bad faith actions. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 19:08, 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!} 18:59, 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!} 23:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on a few dedicated toy reviews, but article could use some clean up. - Indefensible (talk) 22:40, 18 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 Central Operations. Page history is retained for reuse with attribution. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Preparedness Operational Command Unit

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

Low-quality article, no sources cited except for one dead one, not a notable unit, not able to find any reliable sources for this unit Elshad (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Police, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I could find were sites that scrape Wikipedia content and the one cited source, which is not independent. Completely non-notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Central Operations. No reason to delete the info. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 29 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!} 19:03, 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!} 23:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Operations: Fails GNG and ORG. Unreferenced, one official link, nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 23:36, 11 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 Central Operations. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:07, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Police Traffic Criminal Justice Unit

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

Seem overly trivial, no reliable sources cited, not a notable unit at all, does not warrant an article in my opinion Elshad (talk) 14:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Police, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing independent found, other than mirrored Wikipedia content. Violates WP:NORG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Central Operations. No reason to delete the info. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:16, 29 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!} 19:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is looking like No consensus right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Central Operations: Redirects are WP:CHEAP and this obviously fails GNG. This has no info that needs to be merged as this is a non notable unit. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Amity Affliction. Those in favour of keeping the article have not managed to establish that the subject is independently notable. – Joe (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Birch

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

not notable outside of his band. should be redirected to The Amity Affliction per WP:BANDMEMBER. this is an obvious case but I'm starting an official discussion because User:Aarkvark slayer has a history of restoring redirected pages -- FMSky (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. FMSky (talk) 12:23, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nominator's phrase "not notable outside of his band". Furthermore WP:BLP is clearly breached by unverified content both in Early life and Controversies sections.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to The Amity Affliction - while I see some substantial effort in adding article content and some to source it, most of the information not about the band is not encyclopedic. I want to say keep, because I love Amity and he's one of my favorite metalcore vocalists, but once you cut away the cruft (seriously, why are we talking about his time on the street especially without a source? [removed]), there's nothing substantial left that would suggest notability beyond a reasonable doubt. His musical career is entirely composed of details within the Amity Affliction; if there was substantial detail on more than one band, I'd argue otherwise. The controversies added are reliably sourced but not all are relevant to Mr. Birch. I am impressed with the publications chosen, however, they are almost, if not all, reliable. (The article is also poorly written, and uses language of a fan, which I would be happy to fix were it not for Joel's lack of notability.) dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:48, 30 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!} 19:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many sources, and appears to establish general notability as a musician. I don't believe there is any reason that these sources are any less valid than many on other musician pages. However, I understand that repeatedly redoing a redirect is frustrating, and the user doing that may need to face disciplinary action from Wikipedia admins. PickleG13 (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They only mention him in combination with his band --FMSky (talk) 09:45, 11 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks pretty good to me, and somewhat standard in style and sourcing for co-lead vocalist and co-front man. About the only time a front man article gets more detailed, is it he is connected to some sort of internationally known super group.

How is this even a dispute.😭 This is just a member of a random ass band with no individual notabilty --FMSky (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FMSky, that's an unnecessary comment to make and it doesn't help persuade editors to agree with your nomination. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amity is not some "random ass band", they're icons of Australian metalcore and saved my life in high school. But this is about as relevant as the comment that provoked it - even though I too question how Joel clears WP's notability bar. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Amity Affliction, no case has been made for how the subject rises above WP:BANDMEMBER, and the article as-written does not suggest any notability outside of Amity Affliction. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:42, 19 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 Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels since there was no opposition to this proposal. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius Disorder

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

Not enough WP:SIGCOV for this defunct satellite radio station, either in the article or elsewhere. Not opposed to having this article redirected to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. Let'srun (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Radio. Let'srun (talk) 19:28, 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!} 23:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels, where it is mentioned; this is the logical alternative to deletion for otherwise non-notable Sirius XM channels (if not associated with another notable parent entity). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chandramukhi (film series)

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

Only two films not three. Different cast mostly than original and as per the director. All sources are about first film only. The second film was not yet released and if released, it will likely not be a huge box office success. No need of warranting an article like KGF (film series) and Enthiran (film series). DareshMohan (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 6 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!} 23:10, 11 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 23:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great Hope Baptist High School

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

Subject is a small religious high school that has been unsourced for more than 10 years. I did a BEFORE search and couldn't find any usable sources, and no good target for a merge or redirect.Mojo Hand (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:24, 6 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!} 23:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks references to support notability. - Indefensible (talk) 22:44, 18 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. After two relists, most participants are leaning toward preserving the content somewhere, with their !votes split between merge, keep, and weak keep. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glaskönigin

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

Doesn't appear to be notable. PepperBeast (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zwiesel, probably either the economy or history section is the best place to accommodate the information without keeping a separate article. - Indefensible (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Zwiesel area of Bavaria is internationally famous for its glass products and so the person chosen to represent the industry is definitely notable. The article is already well referenced, but has been subjected to drive-by tagging; for example, the list of Glass Queens is clearly given at the site listed under "External links"; I have now corrected that and also added links from other articles. So the article is valid; it just needs further expansion and improvement. Bermicourt (talk) 08:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. It ought to be moved to Glass Queen or Zwiesel Glass Queen in line with e.g. German Wine Queen. Bermicourt (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. PepperBeast (talk) 11:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That might apply to random glassworkers or even individual Glass Queens, but not to the role itself to which women are appointed in order to champion an internationally respected industry and a regionally important historical and cultural tradition. Your proposal gave WP:NOREASON as to why the article "appeared" not to be notable. I agree it did need improvement, but I've since dealt with the citation and orphan issues. Bermicourt (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It applies. Either the role of Glass Queen is notable in its own right, or it isn't. The assertion that the Zweisel glass industry is well-known therefore the Glass Queen role is notable isn't valid, as notability is not inherited. The article appears not to be notable because the topic lacks WP:SIGCOV and I don't think it fulfils WP:GNG. PepperBeast (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should be notable in its own right and I'm not claiming "inherited notability". However, there is clearly a linkage between a role and what the role represents: the post of the Chancellor of Germany is notable because it represents a country. The post of mayor of Diddly Squat village is not notable because Diddly Squat has six inhabitants. Meanwhile the topic has pages of coverage online – you just haven't searched for it – and that coverage is way more than "a trivial mention" (to cite the policy), so it easily passes SIGCOV and GNG. Bermicourt (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArcAngel (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on the German Gnews sources, I can't comment on the quality, but it's too long to be BS and seems to exist. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 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!} 23:02, 11 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Ojini

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

Article about a musician that does not meet WP:NMUSICIAN, regular PR/PUFF pieces that we may say are pay to play. No WP:SIGCOV, sources are also mostly passing mentions. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Jamiebuba (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject is clearly notable and has been nominated for several notable African Music Awards. There are also lots of references about the subject, showing that he clearly meets the WP:N and WP:NMUSICIAN. Be kindly referred to WP:BAND

Mevoelo (talk) 23:40, 21 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!} 22:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am only talking part in this discussion to deprecate the use of an accusation of bias against the nominator. It is not appropriate in this forum. Concerns about motivation should be addressed first with the editor concerned. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for sharing your concerns. However, I have noticed that this editor places tags on several profiles without proper checks and research especially as regards notability. If a subject is not notable in your region, it is important to do well to double-check before moving the works of other editors to draft especially when all requirements as per Wikipedia editorial policies have been met. Also, it was not an accusation — I only stated that there is a high possibility of such happening which I have observed longitudinally. There are several Nigerian/African notable awards and reliable primary/secondary sources to show notability (internationally and nationally). My apologies as well. I will do well to take this correction and avoid it in the future. Cheers! Mevoelo (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mevoelo, just for the future, on Wikipedia, rather than remove content that one regrets writing, it is preferable to strike it out using <s>Remark</s>. Otherwise, it's hard to make sense of Timtrent's comment. It's all in the page history, of course, but it's better to be transparent rather than pretending comments weren't made. Please do this if this situation comes up in the future. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I wanted to cast a keep but then, I went through the sources and found out that the reliable sources were most actually interviews alone. The others, unreliable gossip blogs. If he wins The Headies then we might consider an SNG. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well referenced and Notably satisfies WP:Basic as well asWP:NMUSICIAN. Has also been nominated for several notable awards in Nigeria which also establishes notability. Onosco23 (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:40, 4 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 11 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 a procedural note, Pokelego999, you can withdraw your nomination at any point in the process (by either clearly stating so, with or without a bolded "withdraw", ~~striking out~~ your original nomination statement, or preferably both) however the AfD is not generally closed unless there are no suggested actions other than keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Rani (Doctor Who)

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

While a generally notable recurring villain in the context of the show, I can't find much for the Rani that isn't just speculation about future returns or recaps of plot summaries. I found a few book sources, but they all just seem to mention her in passing, and in terms of Google News, I found these. https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/cult/a401680/doctor-who-steven-moffat-rules-out-return-for-villain-the-rani/ https://metro.co.uk/2014/03/31/doctor-who-kate-omara-was-great-as-the-rani-shame-about-the-scripts-4683650/ https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/bring-back-the-rani-52364.htm The first describes Steven Moffat discussing why the character wouldn't return under his tenure, which while good for behind the scenes information, isn't worth much else. The second source praises O'Mara's performance as the character, and the third discusses the Rani in depth substantially, but as the site is entirely DW related, I'm not sure how valuable it would be as one of the two big sources in an article. I also found a few obituaries for the actress mentioning her role as the Rani, but from what I can tell, they don't go too in depth on the character beyond that. There just doesn't seem to be enough SIGCOV to justify this article's existence. I do believe sources may exist out there for the character, given that she's one of the more notable female antagonists in the series' run and is popular with fans, but I just can't find enough sources to back that up. If anyone finds any sources discussing her in depth in a search that I may have missed, then that might help the article's case, but as it stands, there just doesn't seem to be enough for the article to work with. A possible AtD could be the Villains list, but I'm not terribly sure myself if that's the best alternative or not. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Pokelego999 (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or redirect per WP:ATD. WP:BEFORE didn't find enough WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I make a good faith attempt to improve the article (see below) ~~Merge/Redirect~~, but where? This is a notable Doctor Who character and I'm a bit surprised about the lack of coverage, but then again we seem to have this problem often for pre-internet pop culture. Will other character articles from {{Doctor Who villains}}, which are in similar or worse shape, be AfDed as well? List of Doctor Who villains is a pretty sad list at the moment but could be reformatted and expanded to accommodate merged entries from this article and Beep the Meep, Celestial Toymaker, Rassilon, Valeyard, etc.— TAnthony^Talk 16:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely dislike the current villains list, and do feel it needs some improvement. I'd go and do it myself, but I've been so busy recently that I don't have the time to make necessary changes to the article. In any case, I feel it's the best alternative to deletion we have, given the fact that neither of her stories (Time and the Rani and Mark of the Rani) feel like proper targets, and all other potential targets feel iffy at best. I'm still genuinely surprised about the lack of coverage myself, but I'm hoping someone might find something before the end of this AfD discussion.

As for your question about future AfDs, I'll probably end up looking through some of the iffier entries there, namely Omega, the Valeyard, and Rassilon, at some point in the future. I believe there may be coverage out there, but I won't know until I do a check. I'm holding off on Beep just in case the 60th Anniversary Specials yield any good coverage, as there may be a good shot there. In any case, I'm holding off on these reviews until the AfDs for fictional elements clear up a little, because there have been so many article floods recently that I feel they'll probably get missed. Pokelego999 (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on this article in draft space, it seems like this AfD will be relisted but I'm traveling for work next week and would like a grace period on this to see what I can do. Also, I've been looking at other Doctor Who character articles and lists, and many/most are woefully undersourced and plot-heavy/crufty (huge unsourced paragraphs on the Doctor's costumes?). Anyway, it seems like the Rani has been singled out unnecessarily, but even so there shouldn't be a rush to eliminate this article. Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 15:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to see people working to improve the DW Articles, because as you said, there are a lot of places that need improvement. In any case, though, I'm not quite sure I can withdraw the nomination at this point in time, and I'm uncertain if there's any other method of obtaining a "grace period." I'm not too well versed when it comes to this part of the AfDs, unfortunately. Pokelego999 (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Any feasible Merge/Redirect target article come to mind?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 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!} 22:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can be convinced to redirect to List of Doctor Who villains. Expansion and improvement of that list could happen through editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article in draftspace, and just now added my improvements to date (about half of the article) to the mainspace article. I've found some great sources. The article is now clearly a keep, and will be even more so as I add more citations and sourced sections in the coming days. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 14:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits, I missed a couple of the sources you used myself. I'm satisfied enough that I'm fine with the article staying, but I don't believe I can withdraw now given how long it's been. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:23, 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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Tariverdi

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

Fails notability, never played for the national team, his achievements are only in the youth level competitions. Sports2021 (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sports2021 (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 11 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. – Joe (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dakrya

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Theatre, and Greece. UtherSRG (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is why bands shouldn't choose a single dictionary word as a name. Dakrya (Δάκρυα) is the Greek for tears, which means that hits for the band are drowned out by hits for the bodily secretion. Here's a reference: https://progrocks.gr/en/dakrya/ https://www.more.com/music/kyttaro/voices-of-the-mist-festival-vol-2/ https://rockoverdose.gr/dakrya-interview-rockoverdose-gr/ Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:31, 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!} 18:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the Greek sources identified above there are also some English sources AllMusic bio, AllMusic album review, and Metal Storm staff album review so that together there is a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Atlantic306 presents three sources, but the first thing to note is that two of these are from allmusic.com, so these count as one, not two sources. WP:ALLMUSIC shows no consensus on reliability of this source, but in general these appear to be independent secondary and reliable to me. So that is one source. Looking at MetalStorm, it is a 2011 review of this webzine, that does meet the threshhold described here [3] (i.e. staff reviews after 2009). However we are still short of multiple reviews per WP:BAND. I had not !voted on this, as I don't know the subject and I can believe there may well be more information out there, but it has not been presented to date. Per Eastmain, it is a frustrating one to research. But we are not over the line yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:53, 12 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. WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 23:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Development Business

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Only non-WP:IS sources. Fails wP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 17:03, 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!} 18:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article probably needs to be re-written, it's so out-of-date, and needs independent sourcing. However, the home page of United Nations Development Business is evidence that this is a vital part of the United Nations. Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations doesn't look like it's too active these days. The article is legit and notable. — Maile (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:46, 11 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!} 17:46, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Archana (actress, 1970s)

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

Notability issues. Citadeol(talk) 18:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marginal actress (career consists of 3 movies) that fails WP:NACTOR but more crucially doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There was a woman on Big Boss with this name, nothing for this individual found. The single source used in the article isn't RS per sourcebot. Oaktree b (talk) 22:31, 11 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!} 17:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Big Lurch (cosmology)

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

The article itself is lifted from an off-hand comment made in an interview (compare the article text with the source: "matter itself can, kind of, work itself up to a frenzy; the pressure, forces in the universe might become infinite and again time might or might not be a casualty of that ... according to astronomical calculations, there is a finite probability of it actually happening and relatively soon"). I initially just tagged it to request better sources but having searched myself I didn't find any independent coverage. The Google search '"Big Lurch" cosmology' turns up 63 results, almost none of which are relevant. Doesn't seem notable unless there's a different technical name for the concept unmentioned in the article. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree; the only relevant result in Google Scholar is the Scientific American article. Without the disambiguator, nearly all results are for the rapper Big Lurch. Big Brake has similarly poor sourcing, but it seems to be marginally notable based on GScholar results. One source definitely independent of the original authors and the authors of the SA article is: ^[1] –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We shouldn't create articles by sweeping up the debris at the bottom of the pop-science cliff. XOR'easter (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Chimento, Luis P.; Richarte, Martín G. (16 February 2016). "Big brake singularity is accommodated as an exotic quintessence field". Physical Review D. 93 (4). arXiv:1512.02664. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.043524..

Delete. Agree with the above reasons. Aldebarium (talk) 19:15, 14 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!} 17:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gowrishankar srg

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

This is a WP:ROTM actor/film-maker doing his job, written more as a paean of praise than as an article, and with execrable referencing. WP:ADMASQ, fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero coverage found, unless he was running for elections. Delete for lack of any kind of sourcing. Sourcebot gives red links for what's used in the article. Some are yellow, but don't talk about this individual person. Oaktree b (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 11 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 World Championship of Online Poker. Nominally no consensus between redirect and delete, defaulting to redirect due to lack of support for the status quo (aside from a sockpuppet). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marat 'maratik' Sharafutdinov

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

While this article subject won a huge amount of money in one poker game 11 years ago, I think they are a good example of WP:BLP1E fame. I also don't think the sources we have are independent reliable sources, they seem blogish to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Russia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Championship of Online Poker (where he is mentioned under 2012, but not back-linked to this article) as a BLP1E. Naming convention stinks, no objection to renaming in the process. No objection to deletion if there's a good argument that this fails V, not just N. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either 2012 World Championship of Online Poker and/or 2012 World Championship of Online Poker Main Event. TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Championship of Online Poker per above. BLP1E. // Timothy :: talk 02:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting inappropriate sock closure; initially closed by User:The Micronesian-Corsican Revolution who is the same user as User:TheElvisBelievingBumbleBee, and closure did not reflect the emerging consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the poker event he won. There is nothing to be found for him online outside of his win, even that is thin pickings. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that at the same time as inappropriately closing this discussion, Micronesian/BumbleBee made a cut-and-paste copy of this article at 2012 World Championship of Online Poker Main Event, and then closed this as a redirect to that article, effectively doing an end-run around the discussion. I have undone that as well. @Oaktree b: in case you'd like to restate, as that article no longer exists. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply redirect to the master article, the World Championship (describing all the events, not simply one year's event). Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: G5: Sockpuppet of The Micronesian-Corsican Revolution UtherSRG (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out elsewhere but restating for the benefit of this discussion: G5 is not valid as the creator was not under sanctions at the time of the article's creation. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to master article World Championship of Online Poker as Marat Sharafutdinov. 'maratit' is just his nickname. HarukaAmaranth ^春 _香 19:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on whether this page should be deleted or redirected, but Marat Sharafutdinov and Maratik should be preserved as redirects no matter what happens here. World Championship of Online Poker lists his impressive win and would be a suitable target if this page is deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator here (non-admin closure) ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt (1979 film)

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

Only three sources, and Source 2 seems ROUTINE. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Motorsport, and United States of America. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some references - the film received a national cinema relese it deserves an entry. Britfilm (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify - the sources at the moment demonstrate notability, and the fact that more have been added shows how the article is improvement and can be improved further.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:54, 11 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 14:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Siegel

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as having any claim to passing WP:NPOL. As always, non-winning candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates -- the notability bar for politicians at NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if either (a) they already have some other claim of notability for some other reason besides being an unsuccessful election candidate, or (b) they can demonstrate a credible reason why their candidacy should be seen as much more special than everybody else's candidacies, in some way that would satisfy the ten year test for enduring importance. But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced to a mixture of primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and run of the mill local campaign coverage of the type that every candidate in every election can always show, which does not constitute evidence that she's earned special treatment that other unelected candidates aren't getting. Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Vermont. Bearcat (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Limited coverage after the election, this is all I find [4]. If there were a few more articles, I'd be ok as she would be a notable activist. Otherwise, not meeting BLP. Oaktree b (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have a long standing policy that one does not get a Wikipedia page simply for having lost an election. She can be adequately covered on the pages for the elections in which she was a candidate. SportingFlyer T·C 10:09, 15 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!} 17:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great Directors

AfDs for this article:

- Articles for deletion/Great Directors

Articles for deletion/Great Directors (2nd nomination)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. In-depth coverage in:

among other things....!!!!!! Also please seeInterview about the film in the NYT-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note to nominator, @UtherSRG: would you consider withdrawing this nomination? Thank you.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC) (also have a look at the first nomination, please)[reply]
Delete Interviewing famous people doesn't, alone, bring notability to the interviewer. The abovementioned sources are rather focusing on the "lineup" of the film than the film itself and the director. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interviewing famous people doesn't, alone, bring notability to the interviewer. No but 1) we are discussing a film not a person 2) various reviews in very reliable media (I did not wish to leave the link to The Culturist, which is not really great in any way, in the list but I left it by mistake and will leave it; there are other sources anyway but the list above is more than sufficient) do establish notability of a film. The abovementioned sources are rather focusing on the "lineup" of the film than the film itself and the director is absolutely not true! They do focus on the film and its content. Because I am not going to quote them all verbatim to prove it, I'm inviting other users to read them and confirm these are reviews in reliable independent sources. This film is obviously very clearly notable and I still hope the user who initiated this discussion will withdraw this nomination. Notability had been established at the 1st Afd and, as obvious as this may seems, it's very easy to confirm that it's still clear, very very clear. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 02:28, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be plenty of reviews in the usual places. I'm not really seeing a rationale to delete. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No further comment

-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 05:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the full reviews of the film in very reliable sources such as The Guardian, The New York Times and LA Times as well as many other reviews linked above so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:45, 12 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 speedy delete‎. CSD G7 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Negative XP

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

Subject does not appear to pass WP:NMUSIC. There is a lack of significant coverage amongst reliable sources. This article uses WP:SPS and other sources with questionable reliability. It was draftified but the creator objected. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note - USe WP:MFD instead. AfD is only for mainspace. Millows! | 🪧 12:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Millows: The article has been moved back to main space now by FormalDude. Based on the edit history, FormalDude nominated this a moment after another user moved the page to draft space. Per WP:DRAFTOBJECT, the article never should have been sent back to draft space after there was opposition to re-draftification. FormalDude has done the right thing in taking this to AfD and reverting the draftification. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's my b, sorry! AntiDionysius (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete ^{and light it on fire} Honestly, this is nothing more than complete vanity spam with non-rs and blackhat SEO. PICKLEDICAE🥒 16:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and also block the creator for blatant spam. PICKLEDICAE🥒 17:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do not keep upon seeing FormalDude explanation about student newspaper, this subject is not fit for wikipedia. -- original article creator "binod tharu" (alias)
~~Keep~~ I will first show BASIC BLP notability, located at WP:BASIC. List of in depth articles:

https://dirtysouthrightwatch.org/2021/virginfest-incelcore/
https://www.thereflector.ca/2022/04/05/the-counterculture-movement-according-to-indie-punk-rocker-negative-xp/
https://cavedwellermusic.net/blog-1/post/201232/negative-xp-gamer (an album review)
http://revenge-of-riff-raff.blogspot.com/2021/11/wtf-is-incelcore.html (this is not a personal blog and not self published. There is an online magazine and one can browse other articles verify there are multiple authors on the editorial board.)

Finally I will show point 7 of WP:MUSICBIO:

Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

This is justified by him being the flagship artist of the incelcore scene and the headliner of the Virginfest festival (https://dirtysouthrightwatch.org/2021/virginfest-incelcore/, https://georgiastatesignal.com/atlanta-has-an-alt-right-problem/). This genre is notable as it has been described in two or more sources, such as the one above. More mainstream source showing he is the most prominent member of incelcore/incel punk: https://variety.com/2020/film/reviews/tfw-no-gf-review-incel-documentary-sxsw-1234599950/

Finally I edit out all of the self-published sources and unverifiedable content out yesterday. All sources in the article at present are from multiple-author publications (not self-published). Calling them self-published would be poisoning the well, as they are self-published to the extent that "newspapers self-publish their newspapers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by बिनोद थारू (talk • contribs) 21:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources do not count towards notability, see below. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://dirtysouthrightwatch.org/2021/virginfest-incelcore/		Partisan source that itself cites clearly unreliable sources.		✘ No
https://www.thereflector.ca/2022/04/05/the-counterculture-movement-according-to-indie-punk-rocker-negative-xp/	? Unclear, appears to be written closely with Negative XP.	Student newspaper, WP:RSSM. Also labeled an opinion piece.		✘ No
https://cavedwellermusic.net/blog-1/post/201232/negative-xp-gamer		This is another music group's WP:BLOG.		✘ No
http://revenge-of-riff-raff.blogspot.com/2021/11/wtf-is-incelcore.html		A non-notable online magazine with highly questionable relevance and reliability. No evidence of editorial oversight. The author calls themselves a "prophet, seer, revelator, gigolo, assassin, and empath", and according to the Anti-Defamation League is a white supremacist. Clearly not someone who should be referenced on Wikipedia.		✘ No
https://georgiastatesignal.com/atlanta-has-an-alt-right-problem/		Student newspaper, WP:RSSM.	Fails WP:DEPTH.	✘ No
https://variety.com/2020/film/reviews/tfw-no-gf-review-incel-documentary-sxsw-1234599950/			Trivial mention only.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AfD has been withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) iMahesh (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shear’Ree

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

While the subject of this page could be considered notable, I can not find any other sources confirming the information provided here. The sources currently in use are almost all subscription-required. The only thing I could verify is his presidential campaigns and that he competed in competitions in 1980 and 1981. Ktkvtsh (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Sportspeople. Ktkvtsh (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not offer a formal opinion where the article concerned is a draft that I reviewed and accepted at AFC, so this comment should neither be interpreted as keep nor delete.
What has always been clear is that Notability is fundamental to retention and lack of notability to deletion. What must be decided, difficult paywalled references notwithstanding, is whether the subject is notable. If they are, then referencing doubtless exists and should be added, assuming the references to be deficient. But paywalls have never disqualified a reference.
That being said, AFD is not cleanup, though it often serves as a significant trigger for a cleanup
It goes without saying that I view the subject as passing our notability threshold sufficiently that I accepted the draft. My brief is to accept if I have a belief that the article has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion discussion. But I am a single reviewer. AFD is the community's will. We are all subject to consensus, the will of the community. This is why I reman neutral when I have accepted a draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO. If we had better sources for the weight lifting event, might be notable. Rest doesn't help notability. I can't find any sources in Gnews or newspapers. Probably not at GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came across this recently at AfC and meant to review it, but didn't have time then to start verifying the referencing, and soon after it got accepted anyway. I've now looked a few of the sources (Wikipedia Library fortunately gives access to both Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive.com), and it is clear to me that WP:GNG notability is there. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would the average person that simply goes to the article and clicks a source be able to access it that way? How can we make it so the sources don't automatically lead to the page requiring a subscription? We've got to keep in mind that most Wikipedia visitors aren't going to have the knowledge of how to take the extra steps. -- Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Ktkvtsh it doesn't matter. What matters is that the reference exists and also what it says. Wikipedia does not view paywalled or other hard to access references any differently from those freely available. This means that "The sources currently in use are almost all subscription-required" as part of the deletion rational is deeply flawed, and cannot be relied upon. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Not being able to access a source doesn't negate notability. Some are only available offline (on actual paper), but we still can use them. I generally don't check the Wikipedia Library I'm lazy but I'll accept what sources others can find. Oaktree b (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  For Newspapers.com, there is a way to clip images to make them free to view: Wikipedia:Newspapers.com#Using the "Clipping" function. It's helpful to users/recommended on that page to use this, so people can easily access references, but I agree that a paywall doesn't stop something being a useful/reliable source. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Afd as it is my understanding that the sources can still be accessed without having to subscribe to the site. Also, I am in agreement that notability does not come from sources. -- Ktkvtsh (talk) 09:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktkvtsh Thank you. The discussion will run for its normal duration because there are opinions expressed both to keep and to delete. I believe that the eventual closer will construe your withdrawal as a !vote to keep the article. It would be worth your making your opinion on that crystal clear for them im case there is any doubt. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:23, 12 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. The author may request userfication at WP:REFUND. ✗plicit 14:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How can AI be applied to Deforestation and Climate Change: Nigeria's Contribution to Global Warming

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

I tried to warn about this "deforestation in Nigeria" project at WP:ANI recently, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1137#Another Nigerian project dropping poor articles here, and well, this is what you get. The suggested solution at AI was mass draftification, but per WP:NOTHOWTO, I don't see how this would be served by draftification or how encouraging further creation of such articles would benefit enwiki. Note how most sources in the article are not about Nigeria at all anyway. Fram (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Computing, and Nigeria. Fram (talk) 10:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's an undergraduate style essay which is not suitable for an encyclopedia. For one thing there appears to be a level of WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR which are hard to untangle. Second, there's the whiff of an article that has been substantially created by an AI LLM. Third there are few appropriate RS which directly address the topic. If/when in the future there are sources that do something more than speculate, maybe the page could be recreated (hopefully with a more encyclopedic tone and title). JMWt (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to this article. I have gone though the acritical and some other Wikipedia articles and have seen the deference. I will prefer to retitle the article as “artificial intelligence (AI) and Climate change Monitoring” and improve on it. Ugoji.john (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've not contributed to the article, I have just given my opinion in this debate. I have nothing to add. JMWt (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obvious essay with no secondary or independent sources. This is a good essay but that doesn’t mean it deserves to be on Wikipedia. Nagol0929 (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While there might be an argument for the inclusion of some of this material in a general Deforestation article, none of the examples or citations provided are specific to Nigeria. There's a lot of "we could do such and so" but not a lot of "such and so is being done" in this article. (I.e. it's too speculative.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay, not useful here in wiki. Could perhaps be a brief section on climate change in Nigeria, using certain facts here, but nothing we can salvage. Oaktree b (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify as this an essay rather than information. The information provided or the sources could be useful for another article, so potentially this could be moved to the creator's or one of the contributor's userspace? I am unsure of a draft though as this topic is more of an essay, but the sources may be useful for other topics. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Userify per WP:BITE. The text is coherent and appears well-cited, it's just too much of an original synthesis to be a standalone article. The text should be handed back to the creator to re-frame or work into other articles rather than being entirely deleted and putting the onus on them to figure out how to get the text back. - Astrophobe (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Delete, specifically do not draftify. Not encyclopaedic content. A little bit synth, a little bit crystal, and a whole lotta essay. Reads like an abstract. Folly Mox (talk) 00:59, 12 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 merge‎ to RoboCop (2014 film)#Music. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RoboCop (2014 soundtrack)

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

Pointless content fork, RoboCop (2014 film) is not that big an article and didn't need the sound track split out of it. I've reverted back the main article and consider that an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK. On it's own it doesn't really qualify under WP:BASIC. Govvy (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that I was reverted, again upon outcome of this AfD, would suggest a restoration on article. I don't understand why you call it clutter. Govvy (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 09:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to RoboCop (2014 film)#Music per nomination. Soundtrack article doesn't even show independent notability at this point anyway. Movie Wave is a single-author blog and I have no idea what consensus there is on Film Music Reporter but it doesn't look much better to me. The other three are so obvious I don't even need to explain them. If that's the best coverage this soundtrack got (note that I haven't searched for any more coverage) then it should've never been split in the first place. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, search is pulling up absolutely nothing. Mach61 (talk) 21:45, 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 England–Scotland football rivalry#150th Anniversary Heritage Match. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

150th Anniversary Heritage Match

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

WP:N. This is just a routine friendly match between two national teams, which happens to mark an anniversary. No evidence of significance or coverage beyond what would be expected for any other game between these teams. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and United Kingdom. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait the match is tomorrow, we should have waited at least until the match occurs to see whether it's notable or not. I don't think it will be- the 150th anniversary doesn't inherently make the match notable, and sources seem to be mostly just talking about the 150 number, which could be mentioned in one or two lines in articles about the history of both teams. That being said, nominating this 1 day before the event seems disingenuous to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - whilst arguably it is WP:TOOSOON I think there's a snowball's chance in hell of trying to stop this page being created. If there are not many media outlets writing about the match today, there surely will be tomorrow. JMWt (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the day after the match. If media outlets only produced match reports as if the match is a standard friendly then deletion is best. But if significant coverage of the match is provided with reference to it being an anniversary then I would say it should be kept. Whist I agree that an anniversary isn't inherently notable, the 150th Anniversary of international football does seem more of a significant one.

Mn1548 (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per JMWt. Defineilty going to get media. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Definitely going to get media" is WP:SPECULATION. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait see how it does in the first place once the match is done but itll prob be seen as notableMuur (talk) 07:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am bemused by this nomination, Jmorrison230582 Did you not consider waiting till after the event to see the full outcome of the match and response? Why nominate before the outcome and respond? Govvy (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no reason to expect anything beyond routine match reports and coverage. WP:NOTNEWS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leading up to the game, (BBC Sport) England v Scotland: Football's oldest international fixture in numbers, (Sky Sports) Scotland vs England: Old rivals meet ahead of era-defining European Championships in Germany, this is not routine coverage. :/ Govvy (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which all relate to the rivalry in general, rather than this specific match. We already have an article for that. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post match discussion

Merge/redirect to England–Scotland football rivalry, no need for a separate article. Giant Snowman 12:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the match was played, the fans booed each other's anthems, Harry Maguire scored an own goal, and England won. Water is wet. WP:SPORTSEVENT, in particular "For a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clear that a standalone article is warranted". Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to England–Scotland football rivalry, game didn't generate anyway near as much notability in relation to "150 years of international football" as I was anticipating when creating this article. Don't think it warrants it's own page. Mn1548 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Nothing pre or post match is outwith WP:ROUTINE for a football match. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect only I completely disagree on any merge to England–Scotland football rivalry of content, however I agree with GiantSnowman on the redirect as a possible search term. There is a paragraph already there with the subheading of September 2023 friendly that needs retitling to 150th Anniversary Heritage Match and the prose could be expanded on the article there, but a complete merge is simply out of the question, pinging Mn1548 over that also. Govvy (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously a complete merge is a no, but certain prose content should be kept somewhere on Wikipedia. Mn1548 (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much of extreme significance happened in this match. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to England–Scotland football rivalry#September 2023 friendly. The coverage of this match has been WP:ROUTINE or about the rivalry in general. As such, there's no need for a separate article, and it's already covered in a few lines at the rivalry article (which is more useful game summary than this article has anyway). Joseph2302 (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a friendly match with a fancy title. No indication of significant coverage. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:43, 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 keep‎. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chellamma (TV series)

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

non-notable tv series, sources are mainly routine (this actor/actress left/joined) with their bios, and previous series titled chellamey as well as a song of the same name — Karnataka ^talk 10:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, India, and Tamil Nadu. — Karnataka ^talk 10:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also Chellamma(TV series) that the redirect was removed by an editor and reverted as unsourced by myself. Adakiko (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NTV DonaldD23 talk to me 16:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: added more source.--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:52, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or draftify - this article needs work but there are already sources on the page which show notability, though more sources and information is needed. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs additional sources. Citadeol(talk) 10:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets notability with the existing sources Ravensfire (talk) 18:00, 12 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. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Irish nationalism

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

There is no such thing as Northern Irish nationalism. Yes, sometimes this combination of words may appear in newspapers, but it is never clearly defined and does not refer to anything specific. Nationalism in Northern Ireland is a political ideology that advocates Irish unification. Nationalists believe that the people of the entire island of Ireland should govern Ireland as a sovereign state. Ulster nationalism is entirely different and has nothing to do with Northern Irish nationalism. Kpratter (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disambiguation page (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation) and, as a new user, you may not be familiar with the concept. It seeks to make the very sort of clarification you make, to those who may be searching using an ambiguous or unclear term. It is thus useful to indicate to them articles that may fulfil the intent of their search. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like a useful assistance for navigation as a disamb page. JMWt (talk) 11:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom suggests that the term "may appear in newspapers, but it is never clearly defined". Which, to my read, is a reason to retain (rather than to delete) this DAB title. In the context of notability/use, the term does seem to have some use in academia ([8], [9], etc). And so WP:NEO doesn't seem to apply. And, in the context of meaning, the term does appear to be used (broadly) in the two ways covered by this DAB page ([10], [11]). I personally don't follow or support the rationale for deleting. Guliolopez (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Dab pages are cheap and easy to implement. This has no reason to be deleted. Nagol0929 (talk) 11:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are there any sources for any of this? In addition to "this combination of words may appear in newspapers". And any secondary sources that support "it is never clearly defined and does not refer to anything specific"? If not, this seems to be largely OR and I don't like it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without wanting to fall too far down the rabbit hole, it is clear that 'nationalism' in Northern Ireland refers to two different things. This article describes nationalism in the context of a political movement in Northern Ireland which seeks Irish unity. Whereas this article describes it as a political movement within NI by people who strongly believe in British nationalism. It's not much of a stretch to believe that there is no consensus in the media as to a generally accepted meaning of the words and therefore it is appropriate to have a disamb page on en.wiki for readers to find what they want. There's no OR here that I can see, simply trying to clarify by being more precise with the terms. JMWt (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my request to delete this page. Initially, I believed that every page should possess a clearly defined subject, allowing readers to discern its purpose. However, I have since realized that disambiguation pages may not necessarily adhere to this criterion and can consist of arbitrary word sequences. Therefore, I retract my deletion request. --Kpratter (talk) 09:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the reponses on board and withdrawing the nomination. Disambiguation pages should not "consist of arbitrary word sequences". To highlight the more pertinent sections of Wikipedia:Disambiguation, so you can gain a clearer understanding, check out Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_page_or_hatnotes? and Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_pages. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly cromulent disambiguation page. As for the question raised by Gog the Mild above, I should think it could at worst be resolved by moving the page to the title Nationalism in Northern Ireland (which currently redirects to the article under discussion). Either title is, to my eye, sufficiently plausible as a search term. TompaDompa (talk) 17:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The wording just needed some tweaking. The problem was that the entry for Irish nationalism made it sound like "Irish nationalism" as a total topic was also called "Norther Irish nationalism", when what was meant was that "Irish nationalism within Northern Ireland" might be called that. Fixed. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:36, 15 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!} 05:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SEC Newgate

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Brochure article. Refs are routine annoucements and PR. scope_creep^Talk 12:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 6 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!} 06:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the references:

Ref 1 [12] Routine coverage. Not independent.
Ref 2 [13] Press-release. Not independent.
Ref 3 [14] Press-release
Ref 4 [15] Interview with founder. Also a profile. Not independent.
Ref 5 [16] Another press-release.
Ref 6 [17] Another press-release.

Not a single one of the first 6 references pass WP:SIRS in the frst block. It fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 12:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article describing the rebrands, office expansions, acquisitions, AIM-listing and -delisting of a PR firm. All of these are events which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, and press mentions of periodic research studies by a firm falls under dependent coverage. (I note that when first created, both this and an AfC-declined draft article about the company founder, authored by the same editor, carried COI declarations.) Neither the present article text, nor anything that I can see on searches, is indicative of attained encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 15:55, 11 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!} 05:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ché Zuro

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

Refs are interviews and profiles. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creep^Talk 12:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 6 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!} 06:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unconvincing claim of notability, with article sourced almost exclusively by sources not noted as reliable by Wikipedia:RSP. The outsized content suggests this is a fanpage. 128.252.210.2 (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Elizabeth Myrick

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

This college athlete may not qualify for WP:GNG Ktkvtsh (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ktkvtsh (talk) 06:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Kentucky. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not meeting sports notability, lack of coverage [18] is all I can find. Oaktree b (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not sure you linked to the correct article @Oaktree b. I'm failing to see any mention about the subject. In any case, this subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Let'srun (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, wrong link. Still no coverage found. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 14 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!} 05:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Front TV

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

Non-notable TV production company. There were a couple of media mentions in 2013, but I couldn't find any evidence that it actually ever produced anything. PepperBeast (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. PepperBeast (talk) 06:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. As written, this is promotional and fixing it would reduce it to a microstub. I agree with the PROD removal comment that the digital trends source may be usable in some context, but probably not as a SIRS source for a production company -- more likely as a source for the Back to Front show, if it ever got made, which I am not really sure of. —siro χ o 06:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd perhaps redirect to the TV show of the same name, it has some coverage. Nothing found for the company alone. Oaktree b (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I didn't find an article on a TV series with this name. Any other Redirect suggestions?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 11 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!} 05:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StatMuse

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only the 2 techCrunch are reliable, but doesn't somehow talking to StatMuse directly. Looking at WP:BEFORE, it has nothing more. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How does it fail GNG? Also, how would the Fortune source not count as reliable? Also worth noting this was the 3rd article I created that was nominated for deletion by the same nominator in an 11-minute span (1, 2)... I do not have the time or energy to give an honest and equal effort trying to patch up all 3 at the same time to be honest. All were given the same looking at WP:BEFORE gives nothing more reliable type of vibe, so I don't think too much thought went behind these nominations and even if they have merit (I will always AGF, so they do imo have merit), the nominations seem to be unfairly rushed in a spam-adjacent manner ("spam-adjacent" sounds harsher than what I'm trying to say, but can't find a better way to articulate that right now). Soulbust (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found these sources I will sift through and see if they are suitable for incorporating into the article (but off a quick first glance, they do seem suitable for that): 1 2 3 4 5 6. Soulbust (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sports, Websites, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 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!} 04:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject has good enough sourcing in the article to pass WP:GNG as it currently stands. In addition, the sources provided by Soulbust appear to be WP:SIGCOV. User:Let'srun 14:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references meet the criteria since they all rely entirely on information provided by the company and/or regurgitated PR/Announcement.

Fortune's "Meet the Startup" is PR and a puff profile. All of the information about the company is provided by the company or people connected with the company (e.g. customer). Fails ORGIND.
This Venturebeat article comes a few months after this Forbes article but the information is largely the same and has been provided by the company. There is no "Independent Content" in either article in the form of opinion/analysis/investigation/etc that is *clearly attributable* to a source unaffiliated with the company. Fails ORGIND.
This Springfield News-Leader article as well as This TechCrunch article are based entirely from PR and a follow-up interview to allow the founders utter OMG sounds. Fails ORGIND
This TechCrunch article is based on a company announcement on the same day, fails ORGIND
This from Business Insider is based on a funding announcement and an interview, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH
NFLPA article is PR, fails ORGIND
This TechCrunch article is based on PR, fails ORGIND
SBCAmericas is PR, fails ORGIND
Gaming Americas is PR, also fails ORGIND

None of these sources meet the criteria for establishing notability, just based on company PR and announcements and the usual marketing you'd expect from a startup. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on the significant coverage shown by Soulbust. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:20, 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!} 04:41, 11 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!} 05:05, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Gentlemen's Rant

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

Most of the sources are trivi. Looking at WP:BEFORE, I'm having a hard time to find more reliable sources, thus failing GNG. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think the sourcing here is sufficient to establish GNG. Admittedly this is an article I created and worked on over a decade ago when I was much younger (and I do think of that decade-old work as mostly sub-par by my current standards for myself). That being said, it's still a keep for me. Or perhaps as an alternative to deletion, a move to John Elerick , the series' creator. (I just created it as a redirect but suppose it could be deleted to make way for this to be moved to that target and then reworked as a BLP of Elerick). These sources 1 2 3 exist and are more than suitable for inclusion on both this article and the hypothetical John Elerick one and in both cases would help support the establishment of GNG. Soulbust (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 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!} 04:43, 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!} 04:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst more information and development would be great, this will not be possible if the page is deleted, and the sources demonstrate notability anyway. An alternative could be to draftify it. (Please note that I personally hate ranting videos and thus do not watch this show, so I am not biased). DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 15:50, 11 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!} 05:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yaariyan 2

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

Clearly doesn't meet WP:NFF, what's here is routine pre-release info and marketing fluff. Not enough in-depth coverage at this time. Ravensfire (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Ravensfire (talk) 03:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The film is the sequel to a well known Indian film and is going to be released shortly which would make a deletion hasty. The film has also already run into religious controversy which has attracted significant attention further improving non-marketed coverage. I have briefly expanded on this and coverage is sure to be non-fleeting from hereon especially considering the controversy which has lead to police complaints. Gotitbro (talk) 17:57, 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!} 04:39, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. The only independent information is about the religious argument, which is not really large enough to justify a full-on Wikipedia article yet. Sequels, like any film, have to be demonstrably notable before we write an article, and the article has to be based on independent sources. Elemimele (talk) 07:38, 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!} 04:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify it for now, it is already a remake of the south indian film and there are no buzz for this film if it is do well at the Box office then can be move to mainspace. Citadeol(talk) 10:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yaariyan_(2014_film)#Stand_alone_sequel until further development is clear. I believe this is the best solution when the first film(s) are really notable and have a section about a sequel. Which is the case here.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To combine both options, my preference would be to move the current article to Draft space, then create a redirect to Yaariyan_(2014_film)#Stand_alone_sequel (which will at least slow down passionate fans moving the draft to article space). Once the film is released, post on RM to move the draft over the redirect. Ravensfire (talk) 14:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Hopefully, it will lead to some article improvement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michał Gryziński

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

At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Is_the_free_fall_model_of_the_atom_FRINGE?, it was found to fail WP:NPROF and WP:GNG, along with all similar topics. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, and Poland. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. A few very highly cited papers, all single-authored. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Strong Keep. The characterization of the discussion in WikiProject Physics in the justification here mixes up the free fall atom in the context of the Atomic Structure template (where it should not be included) with the work of the man himself. This man's work on scattering theory was influential and even is free-fall atom model is notable. The fact that one paper disputes his free-fall model and that the model is not used in no way alters its thought provoking character. This work is scientific and notable. The only issue in the WikiProject discussion was the template which should have a higher bar for inclusion. Regarding Wikipedia:Notability (academics), he has 4 papers with over 500 to 1500 citations apiece, certain "evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources." His atomic model, while seeming rubbing some people the wrong way, is clearly "interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice". There are large numbers of individual scientists in Wikipedia below this bar. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I remain neutral. In its favor, Ramsauer–Townsend effect links to Gryzinski in a non-gratituous way. A a discussion in Talk:Bohr model suggest that it could be linked there too. However a bit of work is needed. Another possibility is to merge the free fall model into another article.--ReyHahn (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Bohr model is still very popular especially for Rydberg atoms/molecules, and free-fall atomic model suggests to consider not only circular electron trajectories, but also radial - through dozens of peer-reviewed articles in top physics journals, focused on good agreement with various types of experimental data. In contrast, it seems the only peer-reviewed criticism is 2 page 1973 Bates, Snyder article, not even comparing with experimental data (states: "Laboratory data are not available for comparison"). Jarek Duda (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment2: At this stage it seems like a keep. But can somebody provide more sources to help the article?--ReyHahn (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the delete effort is removed I will add some refs. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:23, 12 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 Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets. Noting that yes, it's odd for a sequel to exist while the primary doesn't, however consensus is clear that the sourcing doesn't substantiate page here, and it's a viable ATD. I might suggest with my editorial hat on that some info be merged. Star Mississippi 00:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeti: A Love Story

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

First and foremost, I am surprised that this "sophomore effort" has an article. Judging by the five sources, only the first source is RS. The second source is a passing mention and the fourth source is a questionable review. The third and fifth sources are about the sequel and may not be reliable either. DareshMohan (talk) 02:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, (I would be fine with a redirect to the sequel per Devonian Wombat, which seems like will be kept at AfD). Unfortunately, I plainly do not see how this passes WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. The 5th ref has exactly zero about us information, editorial policies, staff listings, or anything that resembles reliable sources. Moria is another SPS, whereas the 2nd source is a trivial mention and the 3rd source is from its own non-independent Kickstarter page. The other reviews I can find are two more obvious SPS (including one even from Blogger), 1, 2, along with more unreliable ones listed at IMDB. This only leaves one article from Popmatters that is usable, which is inadequate for GNG/NFILM. VickKiang (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the book refs noted below, this has three mentions, one in the bibliography and two during listings, which are clearly not SIGCOV. This is again a single mention. Finally, this is again a trivial mention. Similarly, this website has only a contact page but no other indications of reliability. Therefore, I stand by my delete vote. VickKiang (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The explanation above is fine, there are no other reviews I can find. The movie is not covered in any mainstream sites, we have to go for these secondary sites. I'm not showing enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is the review mentioned above. Also I find the DailyGrindhouse acceptable. There are various brief mentions in books, including this this,this And there is another review. So that with at the very least 2 reviews, the film may be considered notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scared Stiff doesn't appear to have an editorial policy, so it's iffy. The rest are trivial coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 14:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: also, among other things, Daniel W. Kelly (author of this book and specialist of gay horror) has reviewed the film and its sequel. Also, again among other things, Den of Geek has a one-paragraph assessment of the film, let me quote it :’nothing could be greater than the romantic adventure Yeti: A Gay Love Story. A heady mix of redneck tentacle people, a bigfoot-worshipping cult and, erm, massive-schlonged gay Yeti sex, Adam Deyoe and Eric Gossellin’s 2006 film is equal parts hilarious, ludicrous and inspired. Worth watching for so many reasons (none of them a reason to be proud), 2015 sees the release of a belated sequel, so we can look forward to even more hot Yeti action to come". Clearly notable cult film and the article can be improved and expanded with at least those sources. No further comment.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Den of Geek is reliable and independent, but it only gives three sentences to the film, which is to me clearly not SIGCOV IMO. For Daniel W.Kelly's Wordpress blog, even if I concede that it is an expert SPS (the website appears highly informal and the reference here is not classified as a full "review", but the author has written in a medium-size and potentially reliable publisher numerous times per Google Books), the blog article only covers this film in nine sentences in his Wordpress blog, which to me fails SIGCOV, but everyone of course can have reasonably different interpretations; and I am still at a delete. VickKiang (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it weird if we delete the first film from a pair's article, but keep the second? That seems to be where this is headed Yeti 1 is delete, Yeti 2 is keep. Oaktree b (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and New Hampshire. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets (having only an article on the sequel seems almost too perfect for a horror spoof btw), I would not consider publishing in a relatively small and non-notable publisher enough to make whatever one writes reliable enough to contribute to notability forever. Kelly's WordPress article is clearly written as a casual bit of fun, and is not a serious effort like the book is. Since all other sources are mere passing mentions, only the PopMatters source contributes towards notability, which is not enough for a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good assessment, imo the sequel is not notable and not this one. DareshMohan (talk) 16:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMO as someone involved, with 4 delete/redirect votes and just 1 keep, consensus seems fairly clear to redirect. Redirect is supported by two explicitly and the nom said the redirect comment was a good assessment. VickKiang (talk) 07:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VickKiang, it looks murkier to me than your summary reflects. What redirect are you suggesting? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said to redirect to Another Yeti A Love Story: Life on the Streets because I noted I would be fine with a redirect to the sequel per Devonian Wombat (emphasise mine) and they suggested this target. But I am obviously involved and am okay for this to wait for another admin to assess the consensus here though. Thanks for your work on AfDs. VickKiang (talk) 07:10, 12 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 03:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Building Owners and Managers Association

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

NCORP fail. Niche trade organization. They have too many trivial mentions to list out, but I didn't find truly independent, significant, reliable, secondary sources meeting WP:ORGIND The article is also highly advertorial, possibly meeting Deletion #4 category. Graywalls (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, Canada, United States of America, and Washington, D.C.. Graywalls (talk) 02:22, 11 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 00:28, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Mann (artist)

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

This artist does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. When checking the sources, I found that every single museum collection and every award and honor failed verification; those have been removed but are in article history. The current sources consist of: his own website, PR and press releases such as "PRdistribution" and "24-7 Press Release Newswire", other sources are user-submitted content such as Saatchi Art (which is not the same as Saatchi Gallery), an Artsy bio, Artavita, or are churnalism or native advertising. It seems like WP:PROMO and possibly WP:UPE. Netherzone (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Visual arts, and New York. Netherzone (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I've removed a few sources that are deceptive seo/"guest posting" blogs. The rest range from primary sources to simple labeled press releases. Sam Kuru (talk) 01:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've just watched this YouTube video, "Frank Mann honored member of IAOTP" (International Association of Top Professionals) and many of the sentences are word-for-word the exactly the same as those in the article. The thing is, the video was uploaded three months ago, but the article was just created yesterday. Wierd! Could this be an AI generated article? Netherzone (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can gather, the IATP seems very much like an organization where, for a fee, you can get awards, go to galas, etc. e.g. Please state below if you are interested in having a customized professional video, need a website built, customize press release, exposure on NBC, Fox, ABC, CBS etc. SEO for websites to have a higher rank on Google and other search engines. They don't seem to exist outside of the world of PR. Think I'll go see how many articles mention this fluff... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing in the article that looked like a claim to artistic notability was a statement that his works were included as part of an exhibit at the 2019 Venice Biennale. After some confusion with years, I found the web site for the exhibit [19] which does list him among many many other artists. I don't think a small and otherwise unremarked part of a single high-profile large group exhibit is enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Art Newspaper has a 2022 article on "‘Pay-to-play’ galleries" which features a photo captioned "The European Cultural Centre charges artists between €12,000 and €15,000 to exhibit—shown here is its 2019 show in Venice Personal Structures: Identities 2019 at the Palazzo Bembo.". AllyD (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then that definitely does not count towards WP:ARTIST. Thanks for finding this. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ARTIST. Not in any notable museums or collections. Agree with nominator that this is Churnalism. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ARTIST. Nothing in terms of coverage or exhibits that he didn't pay for. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I tried various searches seeking a fresh angle but did not find the substantial, independent coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not close to WP:ARTIST or WP:PROF criteria. Pay-to-play (except for reasonable competition fees, etc.) doesn't count. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:57, 17 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!} 00:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VH1's Top 40 Videos of the Year

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

Complete lack of notability, with zero WP:SECONDARY coverage in the media. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Also, the problematic Chilean IP range Special:Contributions/186.105.96.0/19 has been putting false entries into this list for almost a year. Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Lists. Binksternet (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is analogous to a newspaper's list of best-selling books. Here, a cable channel, which arguably is among the best in a position to judge music videos, has selected the year's 40 best, and broadcasts them to a comparatively large audience. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I also found no reliable secondary coverage. Considered suggesting a merge to VH1, but the page is much too large. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to VH1 Top 20 Video Countdown#Special editions as a compromise. The target article is not overly large and can absorb a truncated chart such as can be found at KROQ Top 106.7 Countdowns#Countdowns by year, where only the top video by year is organized together in one chart. As much as I would have liked to keep this, per WP:NOTEVERYTHING I don't think it is practical or necessary to have the full yearly countdown for every music station that ever existed. Also, it is difficult to source this kind information without using unreliable sources such as YouTube. StonyBrook _babble 05:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, also to consider suggested Merge target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unnotable and unnoticed honor. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:15, 11 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 merge‎ to ABC News Radio. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ABC News & Talk

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

Not enough secondary coverage to suggest this subject meets WP:GNG, either here or elsewhere. Perhaps redirect this to ABC News Radio? Let'srun (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Radio. Let'srun (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cumulus Media Networks — that may be a better target, given that this channel was as much (if not more) about the talk shows that were either syndicated by ABC Radio Networks or originated from ABC Radio-owned stations, than the newscasts produced by ABC News Radio. (The talk shows, their syndicator, and those stations were sold by Disney–ABC to Citadel Broadcasting, which subsequently merged with Cumulus Media; however, Citadel/Cumulus only acquired distribution rights to ABC News Radio, which otherwise remained with Disney–ABC.) In any event, this is another now-defunct satellite radio channel with no independent notability. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different Redirect targets proposed here. Hoping for more input to determine what is best for this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again to settle on a one Redirect target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into ABC News Radio as its history was mainly under Disney ownership and ABCNR's direction, not that of Cumulus, which had a limited license for ABC's logos and imagining, and its use of the news division until ABC partnered with Skyview for distribution. Nate • (chatter) 01:17, 11 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 merge‎ to Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: A–L#Lylla. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lylla

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

A relatively minor character from the Marvel Comic Strips. From a read-through of the article, her comics history seems non-existent, and her reception is almost entirely consistent of listicles. While they can help support notability, the section is composed entirely of them and praise from PETA. A BEFORE turned up nothing beyond speculation and recaps for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, as well as more listicles. There doesn't seem to be enough notability to justify a separate article. From a glance, and as most of the information seems to be MCU related, I feel merging most of the MCU related reception to the List of Marvel Universe Characters: A-L article might be a decent AtD, but I'm not too sure. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Comics and animation. Pokelego999 (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: A–L: Coverage of the character almost entirely consists of trivial mentions and listicles, which don't generally constitute significant coverage. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep RS, independent, non-trivial coverage in CBR, The Direct, The Mary Sue, and Gamerant. While I appreciate that the nom stated a BEFORE search had been conducted, I don't find any of these congruent with speculation and recaps for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, as well as more listicles. Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- CBR entry does not appear to be SIGCOV, it just says the character will be voiced by someone. Other sources add some plot summary. I am not impressed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - And yet, three RSes meets GNG, whether you're impressed or not, correct? Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with those sources is that the vast majority, outside of plot recap, give at most one or two sentences directly discussing the character. Normally I'd be fine with that if there were larger articles more directly discussing the character, but there don't seem to be any that don't fall under this category. Sure, they constitute as coverage, but the coverage they give is extremely weak and barebones. The article itself is also so short that a merger into the character's list would most likely not even bloat it that substantially. There really doesn't seem to be enough here to justify separation. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm confused, did you find them in your BEFORE and dismiss them, or not? Jclemens (talk) 04:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I found several of them, among similar sources, though some of them I did not notice in my before. I dismissed a lot of sources like these because they don't really give much coverage on the subject. Pokelego999 (talk) 12:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Low quality sources that talk about voice actors, plus some plot summary, is not enough for encyclopedia. Unless we can find some SIGCOV-meeting coverage that goes beyond "this new character will be a romantic interest for another more estabilished character" all we can do is to create a fancrufty plot summary. This is not what a serious encyclopedia should have. PS. I did not read Pokelego999's second comment above until having written mine, but I think we both make the same argument. There is nothing to write here outside plot summary and list of appearances. That's not enough. Maybe more sourcing will appear in the future, which is why I prefer SOFTDELETE redirect approach. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: A–L#Lylla per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 10#Arthur Harrow. Obscure and non-notable character in the comics, only known to the public because of the film. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know that Lylla has had some other media appearances before her MCU counterpart debuted. Right? --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force has been notified of this discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect per nom. After WP:BEFORE, I'm not seeing enough WP:SIGCOV to write an article that is more than WP:PLOT or speculation. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per norm. Babysharkboss2 (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the claims of @Jclemens and BOZ: or merge back to List of Marvel Comics characters: L while sending the MCU history to Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe: A–L#Lylla in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:33, 3 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!} 00:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, based on coverage referenced above, reflecting forty years of comic book appearances and other media appearances, culminating in adaptation for prominent inclusion in the fourth-highest-grossing film of 2023. BD2412 T 03:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: L. I'm not sure anything from the GOTGV3 film makes the comic version of the character notable enough for standalone (most of the coverage seems to be "she was in the comic" and that's about it); it's not quite as much of a name-slap as, say, Luke Jacobsen or all those Agents of SHIELD characters, but it's also not too far But there's no reason it can't be dropped into the admittedly-disastrous character list with a note about the film version pointing to the appropriate section of the MCU character list, and the sources would strengthen the list article. And it could also be split back off if there's some sort of situation where the character is reincorporated into the comics and goes on to be a well-covered feature of the comics universe over the next few years, so merge would be preferred to preserve page history. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not enough non-trivial RS coverage to retain an article. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, still all over the map here with editors advocating Keep, Redirect, Merge and Delete. Rather than closing this as No consensus I'll try a second relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with merging, this page does not seem to be up to Wikipedia's standards. 01:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC) TheRealOj32 (talk) 01:52, 11 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.

[1] Chimento, Luis P.; Richarte, Martín G. (16 February 2016). "Big brake singularity is accommodated as an exotic quintessence field". Physical Review D. 93 (4). arXiv:1512.02664. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.043524..

[1]