Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 13 September 15 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

J. P. International School[edit]

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

Created by a single purpose editor. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 00:46, 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! 00:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - lacks references to support; but allow draft refund if the author wants to continue editing. - Indefensible (talk) 04:39, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found some very glancing mentions on a database search; nothing that demonstrates sigcov, but a REFUND for the author might allow something to incubate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:05, 20 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 MyEclipse. Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genuitec[edit]

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

No sources provided in article, and searching only turned up passing references and press releases. ~TPW 14:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to MyEclipse as WP:ATD-R, which has a bit of coverage of the company, and seems to be the only related topic that may be notable. —siroχo 02:29, 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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oatside[edit]

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

promotional content of private company. probably issue on WP:GNG Endrabcwizart (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify seems fine for a recently created article, but I'm not seeing WP:CORP For WP:ORGIND, all the sources seem to be based largely on words of the founder/company. And for WP:CORPDEPTH, much of the depth of coverage is about oat milk, industry, and demographics generally, and not much about the subject. —siroχo 02:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as WP:TOOSOON but has potential. - Indefensible (talk) 04:15, 20 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! 23:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Letter[edit]

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

Article's reception were filled with unreliable sources. Zero WP:SIGCOV per WP:BEFORE. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Bloomberg Yes Yes Yes Goes on about how she made money and about her Roblox career ✔ Yes
Buisness of buisness No Interview ? ~ ✘ No
Forbes Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Wonder works studio No No No Career listing site ✘ No
Npr Yes Yes No Talks about Roblox not just Megan herself ✘ No
Cnbc No Interview Yes Yes ✘ 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}}.
  • Weak delete. CNBC is an interview, the Forbes is a contributor piece. Bloomberg is solid, but it's about all there is for sourcing. One more and we'd be at notability I think Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Entertainment, and Internet. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Besides the articles already mentioned, I found [[1]] and [[2]]. Not convinced that this one passes GNG right now. Let'srun (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom and discussion above. Idiosincrático (talk) 23:29, 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! 20:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as per the good sources located by Cunard below. Delete as per the source list above, also the Bloomberg piece is also totally reliant on either an interview with Megan or an interview with the platform Roblox which are heavily associated with her so not Independent either. HighKing++ 11:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She is note a notable subject even for the limited media in which she appears. Not enough RS coverage of her own activities to merit an article. I vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
    Sources
    1. Connock, Alex (2023). Media Management and Artificial Intelligence: Understanding Media Business Models in the Digital Age. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-0321-0095-1. Retrieved 2023-09-11 – via Google Books.

      The section about MeganPlays contains about 500 words. The book notes: "Megan Letter, previously known by her maiden name Leeds, started on YouTube in 2014 at university, posting videos of herself playing the life-simulation game The Sims. She earned around $400 a month, her YouTube success was modest and she wasn't earning enough to support herself full time (Zabasajja and Kharif, 2021). But by 2022, she was best known for her online name MeganPlays, a pink-purple-haired personality she created for role-playing on Roblox, the fastest-growing gaming platform for user-created games. ... In six years, earnings grew from $400 a month to a seven-figure influencer business, diversifying her YouTube channels, revenue streams and a venture into game design. She went from 240,000 subscribers (September 2018) to 1 million subscribers (September 2019) in just a year. She achieves some 40 million monthly views on her Roblox gaming channel alone (Stubbs, 2021). ... MeganPlays has a 90% female viewership, aged between 7–14 years. Most viewers are aged 9–10. Her content therefore matches the main demographic of Roblox (Sidhwani, 2021) and Letter has mastered the art of online fan engagement."

    2. Zabasajja, Jennifer; Kharif, Olga (2021-04-27). "Roblox Queen MeganPlays Is Making Millions With a Blocky Digital Empire". Bloomberg Businessweek. Archived from the original on 2021-04-28. Retrieved 2023-09-11.

      The article notes: "Letter is rare in that she’s an influencer, a gamer, and a developer, allowing her to cross-promote her products. “MeganPlays’s success is rooted in the fact that she spent time learning the ropes of effective content creation, such as tailoring the look and feel of her channel to a younger audience,” says Doron Nir, chief executive officer of StreamElements, which caters to video-content creators. “She diversified her focus to include game designing, and then combined these skills to launch a title that was well-received by both her own and the greater Roblox community.” ... She started making videos while studying fine arts at the University of Texas at Arlington, then began focusing on YouTube after graduation, playing Roblox games such as Adopt Me!, in which gamers can adopt pets."

    3. Less significant coverage:
      1. del Barco, Mandalit (2021-03-09). "Roblox Goes Public — What's Roblox? Ask Anyone With Kids". National Public Radio. Archived from the original on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11.

        The article notes: "Megan Letter is a Roblox superstar, who famously plays "Adopt Me" with her virtual pet unicorn, Honey. She has more than three million subscribers for her daily YouTube channel "Megan Plays." The 25-year-old influencer from Dallas has other YouTube channels and a merchandise line. She and her husband Zach also run their own studio where they developed the game "Overlook Bay.""

      2. Megan Leeds, who attended the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA), was covered in the UTA student newspaper The Shorthorn. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Student media: "given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions". Although these sources do not establish notability, I am including them here as they can be used to expand and source the article. The sources:
        1. Dilone, Alexa (2016-01-27). "Super Megan's World". The Shorthorn. Archived from the original on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11.

          The article notes: "Megan Leeds is not only a member of Zeta Tau Alpha but also an avid gamer with her own YouTube channel titled “Megan Plays.” The visual communications junior’s passion for gaming started when she was about 3 years old, when her father first introduced her to the world of video games, Leeds said."

        2. Huynh, Mandy (2021-06-26). "The building blocks of MeganPlays: UTA alumna shares her journey of YouTube success". The Shorthorn. Archived from the original on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11.

          The article notes: "Megan Letter, UTA alumna and YouTuber, started her YouTube channel in her Vandergriff Hall dormitory making about $15 a month in 2014. But 3.6 million subscribers later, she’s now making more than a million annually. Letter’s main YouTube channel, “MeganPlays,” has gone through numerous changes from when she started as a college student studying graphic design. The channel mainly included "Roblox" content, a hub for games created by players, but she has pivoted to more vlog-style content since May with occasional "Roblox" videos."

        3. Gibson, Susie (2014-03-26). "Students seek appropriate majors". The Shorthorn. Archived from the original on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11.

          The article notes: "Art freshman Megan Leeds switched from nursing to art because she said being passionate about what she’s doing is far more important than pursuing a career for money."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Megan Letter, also known as MeganPlays and previously known as Megan Leeds, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please assess newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. Evaluating the sources, I think this is still borderline for GNG. I will lean keep on the basis of WP:BASIC which explicitly notes If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. The book is a solid source, so combining the non-interview portions of Bloomberg and NPR, I think we have BASIC. —siroχo 03:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BASIC, as pointed out by Cunard's above sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 20:15, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Christopher[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:NOTINHERITED, and death doesn't establish notability. All sources are simply parroting his death announcement and involvement in two mega-franchises (Harry Potter and Marvel) with no noteworthy individual accomplishments. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 16:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. What is currently on the page attests notability: 3 reliable independent in-depth sources about him. And a brief internet search shows plenty of other sources. He is clearly notable. Also notable as creative professional for his noted contributions to extremely notable films, as the said sources prove.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I believe he does meet notability guidelines, but the article definitely needs expanding. Rusted AutoParts 22:36, 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! 20:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Death generally doesn't establish notability, but notability can become apparent upon death. There is a lot of coverage of this individual that appeared upon their death, not for their death but for their work. So I believe WP:BASIC is met. Side note, I am not sure if WP:CREATIVE applies to technical roles like assistant director, which is a confusingly named non-creative role in filmmaking. —siroχo 03:08, 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! 06:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh Wrestling[edit]

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

Article is a quite promotional piece about a, erm, promoter of Welsh wrestling, though in reality is various lists e.g. of venues in Wales where wrestling has taken place, largely cited to the venues' webpages, or an uncited table of holders of the Weslh title. I can't find anything of any substance in reliable news sources about Welsh Wrestling ...which currently operates from a Facebook page. Time for the article to go, in my view. Sionk (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The substantive information on the page is almost entirely unsourced and appears to make a subject out of a promotional activity. No coverage that I could find in reliable secondary sources, so a GNG fail, and not to mention it should probably be required to meet WP:NCORP as it is essentially promoting a particular business. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:23, 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. (non-admin closure) iMahesh (talk) 02:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife[edit]

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

It is entirely possible that the subject of this article, 'nightlife', genuinely merits coverage in something approximating to an encyclopaedia. This random collection of badly-sourced stuff vaguely relating to the topic, as long as you don't think about it too closely, and as long as you limit the range of the article to the narrow confines of personal experience as a (rare?) Wikipedian who leaves their basement during the hours of darkness to socialise rather than doing actual research, isn't it. Accordingly, I propose that this abomination be deleted per WP:TNT, and suggest that anyone wishing to start from scratch does a little more investigation not just into the subject matter (which surely extends both culturally and chronologically way, way beyond this factoid-farm, and quite possibly back to the discovery of fire...), but into how to structure prose into something a reader might find vaguely informative, rather than brain-rot-inducing mush. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Social science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a Good Article, but it tries. Much of it is a section on 'Sociological research'. It cites a totally reliable academic article by David Grazian. The history section is significantly based on a PhD thesis. That's not terrible at all. As someone who has brought stuff to AfD and called for TNT, sorry, Andy, I don't see this being the case here. PS. The 'Regulation' seciton is meh. But seriously, "This random collection of badly-sourced stuff vaguely relating to the topic"? I don't think we are looking at the same articles, or perhaps our standards are different. What you wrote would apply to a lot of crappy lists in the popculture category, some of them even kept, sigh... but this is much better than that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with Grazian as a source - for what he's writing about, which is an interesting discussion based around a very limited subset of what a general article on 'nightlife' ought to be about, in my opinion. The problem is that using his piece in the manner it has been reinforces the idea that 'nightlife' is somehow only found in the bars and nightclubs of the contemporary urban 'west'. This is essentially the same issue (or rather one of many issues) I have with Wikipedia popcult coverage. It isn't 'popular culture' in general, it is 'the popular culture of a subset of Wikipedia contributors', who in turn are a narrow subset of those who have (or have had) 'popular culture' - i.e. more or less everyone, living or dead. Systemic bias is inevitable in a project like en.Wikipedia, but our popcult coverage actively reinforces it, by encouraging the substitution of primary-source personal experience for sourced critical analysis. Not quite what's going on here with Grazian, where the problem isn't with the source so much as the narrow outlook of whoever chose to cite him. Maybe I'm asking too much of Wikipedia though: I long ago reached the conclusion that Wikipedia habitually bit off more than it could chew, article-topic-wise, and that some subjects - especially broad and ill-defined ones like this- would be better left to specialised sources, and that Wikipedia's attempts to be an encyclopaedia of everything get less and less effective as it broadens its scope way beyond subject matter a crowdsourced project can reasonably expect to do justice to. But then Wikipedia is what it is, it does what it does, and maybe I'd be better off just standing on the sidelines heckling, rather than trying to fix the structurally unfixable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a start-class article. It is expected to be far from comprehensive. And it's on a broad topic, and we know how tough those are to write. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is listed on Wikipedia:Vital articles. Perhaps that is enough for a procedural close? - Indefensible (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability doesn't seem in question, so it's just a matter of whether to WP:TNT. It doesn't look like it's completely unsalvageable to me... it's just a typical low-quality broad topic article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:24, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Lebanon[edit]

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

The existence of this topic is in serious doubt. At Lebanon, the user Beshogur (talk · contribs) has repeatedly removed the coat of arms on the basis that the Constitution of Lebanon doesn't define one (whough the US constitution doesn't define the state symbols, either), and that the symbol was unsourced. The only reference in this stub is circular, and the source added in an August 24 revision at the main article includes fictional content.[1] –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One thing I should like to note is that the announcement of the adoption of the Seal of the President of Lebanon, which is official and which includes this design, notes (in Arabic) that 'the arms were chosen because they historically represent the official symbol of the Lebanese Republic.' That's a pretty scant reference, but it does come from the Lebanese government itself, so it's worth taking note of it. Edit: The design was also præviously used on its own on the Presidency's website (it differs slightly, having a brown trunk, but the general blazon tracks, heraldically). Mnmazur (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another addition to the comment, I discussed this with other user as well. For US, if their coat of arms were adopted by the congress, which is, it makes it official. Beshogur (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that a design of similar construction also appears on the embassy of Lebanon in Paris (on the door to the left). ― novov (t c) 11:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Talk My Edits 20:11, 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! 22:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - These arms have definitely been around a while; I have added a citation from a book, but they can also be found on the Lebanese embassy in Paris (see my comment above) and several vintage stamp/sticker collections (1, 2). Whether they have seen much usage beyond what’s been found is questionable though, so more investigation is probably needed. ― novov (t c) 12:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Modest proposal Initial List". Society for Creative Anachronism. Retrieved 24 August 2023. LEBANON. Gules, on a bend sinister argent a cedar tree palewise proper.

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! 23:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Now sourced. If there are problems with the article, it can be improved. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Koavf: the "source" is ridiculous. 1973 source, not official basis whatsoever. Beshogur (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are four sources. Are they all ridiculous? What do you mean about "not official basis"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing is indeed extremely weak right now, and Beshogur is correct in stating that the first source is indeed not an official government publication. The second source (about the presidential seal which includes it) is though. The other two sources are regarding the more general cedar tree emblem, which probably sees more use and might be worth refocusing the page on.
    But it is (or at least was) clearly used in some capacity by the Lebanese government, contrary to the claims of it being a fictional device. And Lebanon wouldn't be the only country to use a symbol that is not officially legislated in some fashion. ― novov (t c) 00:43, 21 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! 03:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tilden, North Dakota[edit]

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

Another GNIS stub of a siding with a grain elevator, all of which is gone. Searching turned up nothing. Mangoe (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Yet another GNIS permastub about a location on which nothing retrievable has ever been written. Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:49, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kadiyan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG.Sources are just passing mentions. Nothing significant. Maliner (talk) 07:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, and Haryana. Skynxnex (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Text and tags say that it was intended as a List page of people with the surname of Kadiyan, but the only item is a village. Since only a handful of articles exist about someone with this surname, and since there is no WP:SIGCOV of the surname discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, it fails WP:NLIST. If it is not intended as a list, it fails all criteria under WP:GNG. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Originally closed this as a Soft Deletion but the page has previously been deleted as a PROD so Soft Deletion is not an option. So, I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems fine, although maybe someone can repurpose those references elsewhere. It seems unusually well sourced for a 1-line stub. - Indefensible (talk) 03:13, 20 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! 22:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

World's safest banks[edit]

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

There is nothing to indicate that this is an impactful or significant ranking of banks. It is not covered by reliable sources to any meaningful extent and is not use by academics as an estimate of bank security. Thenightaway (talk) 22:50, 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! 22:37, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4-7 defect[edit]

4-7 defect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to only have passing mentions in a few papers. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 21:21, 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 redirect‎ to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 20:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robinette Ramírez[edit]

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

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least two caps for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:47, 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 redirect‎ to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 20:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseline Rivas[edit]

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

Redirect to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least four caps for the El Salvador women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:43, 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! 20:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

VAX Killer[edit]

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

An article about "a marketing phrase". Provides nothing in the way of evidence that the phrase has been the subject of significant coverage in WP:RS, and instead provides a potted history of routine rivalry between commercial rivals, during which the phrase seems to have been occasionally used. The article fails to demonstrate that the phrase was in any way of significance, despite the clear attempt to synthesise such significance through cherry-picking sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndyTheGrump, would you feel the same if the first sentence said "VAX killers were IBM products positioned to compete against DEC's VAX computer systems", rather than "VAX Killer was a marketing phrase"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Firstly because it clearly was a marketing phrase, rather than any sort of product name or type description, and secondly because as the article states, the phrase was used to refer to Data General products, as well as those of IBM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:26, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of the Left Front (India)[edit]

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

Per discussion/conclusions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left Front (India), there is no *national* electoral entity known as the Left Front. The four parties listed in the article do not have and have not had any ongoing *national* electoral alliance since the first Lok Sabha elections. The electoral tally in the article is original research. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 20:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn Would suggest you to merge both disscussions. Anyways once that page is deleted this too shall be deleted on own. Because if the alliance only never existed then what is the electoral history doing here. Shaan SenguptaTalk 20:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shaan Sengupta not really sure I understand your suggestion. As far as I understand (happy to be corrected), it's not possible to merge a deletion discussion with one started earlier. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the AfD outcome of Left Front (India) plus the additional absurdity of retroactively stretching the Left Front back in history before 1977. Also notably CPI(M) and CPI were electoral enemies until 1982, so combining the 2 during the 1970s is completely wrong. --Soman (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharaoh of the Wizards @Alextejthompson @Goldsztajn @Soman, Explicit has deleted the article of Left Front (Bharat). So I think that any more discussion is not needed. This too can be deleted. Shaan SenguptaTalk 02:01, 21 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 Phish discography#Live Phish Downloads: Archival releases. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Live Phish 11.14.95[edit]

Live Phish 11.14.95 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phish discography#Live Phish Downloads: Archival releases: Found no reliable coverage. Article has three ELs but one is the band's official site and the other two are Phish-centric databases, so none of those convey notability. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 19:46, 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! 20:14, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Latendresse[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Canada. UtherSRG (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, journalists are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to show some evidence that their notability has been externally validated by sources other than their own employers — coverage about them, analysis about their work, properly sourced evidence that they've won or been nominated for notable journalism awards, etc. But as usual for bad articles about journalists, this is written like somebody just tried to paraphrase his staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers, cites absolutely no third-party sourcing independent of said staff profiles, and claims absolutely nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable without WP:GNG-worthy coverage to support it. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not seeing sufficient significant coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:42, 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 WP:SNOW delete. Consensus is clear, and this exceeds being an AfD matter and becomes a policy matter given the RfA discussion. BD2412 T 02:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vijay Chaudhary (politician)[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:NPOL, with no evidence he's ever been elected to a significant office. WP:BEFORE search turns up no significant coverage in English, or in Hindi (using the spelling "विजय चौधरी उरई", "Vijay Chaudhary Orai"). I found this routine local coverage of his candidacy, and some mentions of him working on his mother's campaign. None of that adds up to WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not meeting notability for politicians, I can only find someone with a similar name that murdered a police officer. Does not even appear that this person has held office, perhaps at the municipal level, which isn't enough for NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks to me like it fails WP:NPOL JoinFluffy250 (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL, and is a failed candidate for a WP:NPOL office. Typically there is a high notability bar for failed candidates who sought an WP:NPOL office. Additionally, the current version doesn't even say where he held municipal office and there are no sources to verify those claims (violating WP:BLP) so we don't even have the sourcing to consider if he meets WP:NPOL for local politicians. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as per nom Worldiswide (talk) 06:27, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The highest office the article says the subject has held is municipal president of a city — but that isn't an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL in and of itself, and the article is not sourced anywhere close to well enough to meet the standard that a person at that level of office would actually have to meet. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 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 merge‎ to List of Israeli assassinations. Renaming is a separate issue which can be debated on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 20:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of targeted killings by Israel[edit]

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

Merge with/into List of Israeli assassinations or List of targeted killings by Israel. This new article is the same scope and duplicative. Open to a discussion about whether List of targeted killings by Israel (to match the main article Targeted killing by Israel) or List of Israeli assassinations is the better merge target. My preference is for the former. Longhornsg (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query: How duplicative is the content? I'm sure there's some overlap, but there is also likely some grey area between targeted killing and assassination, and it's possible that these lists aggregate events that are described with one term or the other, but are not described as both in the sources, which could raise questions about how best to reconcile the content. How was the assessment that these lists are in fact duplicative reached (I haven't had time to go over it myself), and what is the extent? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just went through the lists, item by item, and there's about 80% overlap. The targeting killings list has a couple (eg Bahtini) that are not on the more comprehensive and inclusive assassination list, but I chalk that up to the outdated nature of the assassinations list, rather than a definitional or source-driven purposeful differentiation that would preclude their addition (for example, I would expect to see Iranian scientists as "assassinations," while Hamas military commanders as "targeted killings", but the lists make no such distinction). Open to other opinions, but from my perusal of both the targeted killings and assassinations lists, there's no clear rhyme or reason why an entry may be on one, or both). As assassinations are a subset of targeted killings, it may be easier just to fold everything on to the latter page. Longhornsg (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, provided that the merged page is moved to List of assassinations and targeted killings by Israel See https://academic.oup.com/book/4558/chapter/146658764 Selfstudier (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a healthy academic and policy debate about assassinations and targeted killings. I would note that the opinion of Miller, a philosopher, does not reflect the consensus of international law and terrorism experts, who generally place assassinations as a subset of targeted killings. No reason to use the longer name, when we can use a more concise and inclusive term. Longhornsg (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a consensus for this. As the Miller source also states: "targeted killing needs to be distinguished from assassination, a practice that is typically unlawful." Not minor. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, targeted killing is more like a subset of assassination that has been deemed somewhat legally permissible in certain circumstances, but still occupies a very grey area. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
who generally place assassinations as a subset of targeted killings The sources given at Assassination#Targeted killing also suggest that the two are distinct so not only Miller.Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the assessment of the overlap, I think I would also support a merge to List of Israeli assassinations alongside a retitling as List of assassinations and targeted killings by Israel, since I have to side with Miller in agreeing that "Targeted killings and assassinations are closely related, but not identical, phenomena". The assassination of militant leaders might often fall under the definition of targeted killings, but there are also entries in these lists that it would be inappropriate to shoehorn into a 'targeted killing' definition. This includes, for example, the killing of Kamal Nasser, a politician and poet, as well as the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, i.e.: individuals who represent a somewhat hypothetical and very much indirect threat versus individuals who might be reasonably be construed as combatants. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Israeli assassinations" and "assassinations by Israel" are not the same thing. The first could be any assassination in Israel as well as assassinations carried out by Israeli individuals and authorities. The second is narrower and is about assassinations carried out by the Israeli authorities. I recommend going for the article title that best describes the killings to be included in the article/list scope. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Orientls (talk) 17:27, 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. (non-admin closure) iMahesh (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muse Watson[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourceability -- but this, as written, is sourced to a directory entry, a production photograph and a glancing namecheck of his existence, which is not enough.
It was also formerly a lot longer and listed a lot more (supporting) roles, but none of that content was sourced either, with the result that it recently got restubbed down to this -- but even just restoring the old content wouldn't actually fix the problem, because an actor's notability resides in his sourcing and not just in the ability to list roles in and of itself.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is not passed by listing roles, it's passed by the article showing a GNG-worthy volume of media coverage about him and the roles, and no role in any film is ever so "inherently" notable as to exempt its actor from having to be sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wouldn't call the Mike Franks role on NCIS substantial, he comes out maybe once a season for an episode or two. Not sure the rest of the roles establish notability either. Bit parts. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above exceptionally lazy !vote seems to have mixed up substantial and significant and has not bothered looking a any parts not mentioned here. Such as lead roles in notable films. It also totally ignores the prime claims from keep comments, the available coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with his other works and sources used in the article are a photo and a movie list from the NYT, so they don't help notability. Unfamiliar isn't lazy I'm afraid. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's more important to evaluate Rusalkii's sources and those in the article than what you think of him as an actor and the roles he's had. Does he meet NACTOR? Right now, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It he's the lead character in the "What You Did Last Summer" movies, I suppose it's notable... Unsure at this point. The sources talk about the character and the movies. Oaktree b (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NACTOR does not exempt a person from having to pass GNG — the question of whether the roles are even significant enough to satisfy NACTOR in the first place requires said roles to be supported by GNG-worthy sourcing telling us the roles were significant, so NACTOR can never be passed by a person who isn't simultaneously passing GNG. Bearcat (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making up additional requirements that are not part of the SNGs. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to stop, because I never started. People routinely try to insert themselves, or outright hoax topics, into Wikipedia by falsely claiming passage of an SNG that they don't really pass in reality — for example, actor articles routinely try to puff up the significance of the subject's roles, as in "So-and-so is an actor best known for [non-speaking bit part]" — so it's been a standard consensus, routinely upheld at AFD for years, that passing an SNG is never just a matter of saying that the SNG is passed, and always depends on the quality and depth and volume of GNG-worthy sourcing that can or can't be brought to show that the claim to passing the SNG is true. Bearcat (talk) 12:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GNG does not override SNGs and nowhere in NACTOR does it say "GNG-worthy sourcing", whatever the fuck that means. Yes it does need to be properly verified but there is no need to simultaneously pass GNG in the SNG. If you want to get rid of this SNG then try do it elsewhere. Not that any of that matters here since we already have a pass of GNG with the coverage in the article at the moment. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:07, 15 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, Dusti*Let's talk!* 17:15, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I still don't think the roles are notable enough for a stand-alone article, we have some sourcing, but it's not massive. Meeting BIO is fine (which I'm not seeing), but we need decent sourcing that talks about him, not a photo caption or a few lines in an unrelated article. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the second problematic delete here from this individual. Says "we need decent sourcing that talks about him, not a photo caption or a few lines in an unrelated article." At the time of that delete comment the article contained 7 references. No 6 is a photo caption as mentioned. I've No Idea which is the few lines in an unrelated article. It's not No 5 which is a partial filmography (no real use here). It's not No's 1-4 as they are all primarily about him (3 even have his name in the title), more than enough for GNG. That leaves No 7 (which I can't read atm) which is about a film he featured in and mentions his character in the title so cannot be called unrelated. With No's 1-4 alone we have the "decent sourcing that talks about him" that they say we need but they seem to be pretending those sources don't exist. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep easily passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. You just have to look for sources. I will try and work on the article more later and add a Filmography section. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Just because the article needs ref work doesn't automatically mean it should be deleted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:10, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Body moment[edit]

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

I did some research and so far, no websites or any pages mention this physical terminology except for a plagiarizing mirror site. Even if it does exist, the term itself is too obscure to have a page of its own.[1]Rebel1602 (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly redirect. Completely redundant with Moment (physics). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We already have Moment (physics), and the title "body moment" is so oddball that I can't see how it would be a helpful redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://dbpedia.org/page/Body_moment
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RL0919 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stepchildren of Society[edit]

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

Could not find enough reliable sources in my google searches to establish notability on the English wikipedia. Article also seems to be pretty WP:PROMO. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:41, 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. The debate that addresses sourcing indicates this falls short. Spartaz Humbug! 21:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dilshad Kamaludheen[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dilshad Kamaludheen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Sources' evaluation
Comments Source
Database entry 1. BWF player profile
4. "Players of World University Championship 2014"
BadmintonIndia.org"
6. "Achievements"
7. "Lagos International 2015 - Results"
13. & 14. "12th World University Badminton Championship"
17. "13th World University Badminton Championship - Individual Event"
20. "Kerala State Level Championships 2014 - 2015"
21. "Air Costa 70th Inter State - Inter Zonal Badminton Championships 2015 at Vijayaw - Results for Rahimtoola Cup for Men"
23. "34th TKV Memorial All Kerala Senior Ranking Tournament 2018 - Results"
27. "Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs"
Routine sports news 2. "Dilshad steals the show with easy wins"
3. "Badminton super league off to flying start at India Club"
10. "All Kerala snooker tourney from July 31"
12. "Double delight for Setiawan : Gulf Weekly Online"
15. "AIU team still in limbo"
16. "Double for Mahatma Gandhi Varsity in badminton tourney"
18. "Mixed day for Indian shuttlers at Canada Open"
19. "Manu Attri and B.Sumeeth Reddy through to the second round of US Open Grand Prix Gold"
22. "Air India, PSPB triumph"
24. "Kerala shuttler gets two-year suspension"
25. "KBSA backtracks, lifts N. G. Balasubramannian's two-year suspension"
26. "KBSA temporarily lifts suspension on shuttler NG Balasubramannian"
Misleading title, the website doesn't open 8. "Dilshad: Making good progress"
11. "Compromise AIU team for Korea"
Unreliable source - "Up18" 9. "Rising from the Backcourt: The Inspiring Journey of Dilshad, a Kerala Town's Badminton Prodigy"

The most surprising thing is accepting this article which is a clear failure of WP:NBAD and WP:GNG. The statement under WP:NBAD states "Medalist at the Grand Prix Gold or BWF World Tour" which this player is nowhere near of. We have been constantly getting articles like Draft:Revati Devasthale for example, which has even won a international event, incomparable to this subject Dilshad and yet the article has not been accepted because the reviewers rightly say that this article doesn't pass the guidelines.

Luckily somehow this article remains an exception, which has not even won an international event, let alone any BWF grand prix or world tour event. His highest achievement is the "bronze medal" at Lagos which doesn't qualify as podium finish under badminton guidelines and other achievements are far more undeserving of an individual article in wikipedia which are all confined to University or State level competitions.

One more thing, I tagged this article on [July 26 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1167174506] with notability concerns. This player, who has been inactive on the circuit for years, somewhow gets all his bio or coverage, almost a month later (24/August/2023), in an unreliable source - Up18 based in Uttar Pradesh. What concerns me is if this news agency is paid to write something about this subject, largely unknown, not even close to some low tier players of India competing in International Circuit and winning some series/challenger events.

I request you all to please kindly read about this article and carefully vote because there are already a lot of concerns about this player's notability.

Note of caution to creator User:Syed Sadique Hussain, don't spam like you did in the earlier Afd as it disrupts the flow and for your ease I have covered all the sources you could get for this player. Thankyou. zoglophie 06:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe that User:Zoglophie has some problem with me. Not only he was rude with me during, the 1st nomination of deletion for this article. he was also disrespectful against the administrator User:Ritchie333 who gave the no consensus‎ motion for the 1st nomination and started arguing with him as well. He has clear conflict of interest and doesn't want this article to be in Wikipedia literally. Here is the archive chat for that -[3]
I would also suggest the Wikipedia community to go through the complete chat for the 1st nomination and specially after it was relisted.
With regards to Dilshad he is a bronze medallist in a international event, former team captain of the Indian team, and several of his opponents and teammates have their own articles. and i would like to point out that he won a national-level university championship for a major country and then a state-level tournament for a jurisdiction which by itself would be comparable to a fairly major country.
Also i would like to point out that Mr Dilshad and his partner where ban by the Kerala badminton Assocation because they complain about the association in media that they were treated unfairly by them which jeopardise Dilshad's career after the controversy. And in India specially in badminton there are limited amount of players that has achieve medal in international event as compared to the population they have. so, media does like to hear about people who have a controversial career. so, news article does pop - up every year.
And who said that this player is inactive huh? here is this details that he has been playing.. the last match he played according to the official badminton website was in 2022 in INFOSYS FOUNDATION India International Challenge 2022 -[4]
Please, do not add false information in the discussion that he hasn't played in years!
Mr Zoglophile is taking this personally and he is taking the rules too strictly. i would like to remind him of WP:Ignore all rules policy where the focus of the article should be for improvement and written in an neutral point of view not to implement rule on everything that he sees ..which is exactly what he is doing right now.. i wrote this article following the rules and guidleines of wikipedia best to my knowledge. So, what mistake have i done?... see in this case - WP:NOTFATRAT should be implemented.. Wikipedia is an information-based place where things are written in neutral point of view and it should be information based only. that is how i wrote.
and pls Mr zoglophie... i am not here spamming this place .. i am justifying mine and other wikipedia communities' point of view. Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to talk page zoglophie 07:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a procedural note, I did close the first AfD as "no consensus", this was raised at deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 June 28#28 June 2023) where there was a unanimous consensus from everyone else to endorse the close. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial mentions or name drops, nothing found in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing in Gnews, only thing I can find are videos of the matches played. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 27 references about this person in which 2 - 3 have significant coverage about him... pls, note why don't you go through each of the references found in his Wikipedia page right now ... you know that very well right? that a news article validation doesn't last long sometimes it either becomes archive or it is very difficult to be found due to its ranking getting extremely reduced over time. this badminton player when he was in his prime was in controversial news about 5 - 6 years ago and in his prime 8 - 10 years ago... now he come to an retirement age so, you wouldn't find much article written about him now since, fame does go away after some time. Syed Sadique Hussain (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have, they are all trivial mentions. Mr X does YZ is not what we need. We need articles about the person, being the main topic of article. What's used here is not helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - I would like to mention that the 8th reference that the nominator has mentioned which he was not able to access (which i don't know why because it was accessible from the very beginning) has significant coverage of the badminton player - Rayan, Stan (2009). "Dilshad: Making good progress" (PDF). The Hindu. p. 1. and it is a reliable source since it was published in the Hindu newspaper. additionally, i am attaching the link as well- https://www.udrop.com/KJzn/Dilshad_making_good_progress.pdf?download_token=aa5d49e6d05bf4e4ce85e67eb68cd3719f07553b48d32ac45ab91524c11594fc it can be access directly from the link. Additionally, i checked WP:RS/P with regards to up 18 news and it is no where mentioned that it is an unreliable source as a matter of fact the article has significant coverage of the player that details about alot of other things ... only a smaller part of it is mentioned in Wikipedia and even if the article doesn't exist still there are multiple secondary and tertiary source that act as evidence which are to prove what is written in Wikipedia about this person ... so, on what basis the nominator is calling it unreliable is controversial. before he accuse me of socketpupptary and now he is accusing of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Sadique Hussain (talk • contribs) 15:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the AFD 3 months ago; not much has changed since then, leaving it as no consensus should have been fine. - Indefensible (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator was told in the DRV here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_June_28 to WP:DROPTHESTICK. This behavior is kind of disagreeable in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    his old Afd vote: he is a medalist, former team captain, and several of his opponents and teammates have their own articles. Sufficiently notable and with good ref coverage. Just to remind everyone else that this user claims to be an inclusionist in his user page, which may affect their rational decision making and possibly disrupting the consensus building. We should be mindful of users who are here only to halt the process of deleting articles unworthy to Encyclopedia's standards. zoglophie 19:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not really have any personal dispute with you really, but inclusionism does not seem against encyclopedia development. Rather, there was no real need to relitigate after your previous AFD from June and the following DRV where there was consensus to endorse the outcome. - Indefensible (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Indefensible, we are not talking in personal terms here, atleast I'm not interested. But there was no consensus before and large part or it was responsible for the discussion already happened which prompted the admin to close the Afd. Just so you know, I can always relitigate the Afd afterwards.
Your vote before was also not policy based, you were silent on the question I raised in previous Afd. Your vote here too is also dubious which is where Inclusionism - practice of saving unworthy articles comes in play. Thankyou. zoglophie 04:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What should be included or not is largely subjective opinion depending on both the interpretation of policy and the development of policy itself. If you characterize all of inclusionism as contrary to "rational decision making," that is a strawman argument which is stupid frankly. Also you said that I did not understand policies such as WP:GNG, however that is ad hominem and purely your subjective opinion. It was not worth responding to. - Indefensible (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zoglophie, there is nothing wrong with having inclusionistic leanings just like there is nothing preferable and virtuous about tending towards deletionism. It depends on the article and the sourcing. Please do not attack editors again like you did during this AFD, it is incivil and will result in a block next time. There is no reason to get so worked up about having a difference of opinion with another editor, it happens on a daily basis here and while you don't have to agree you have to respect other editors. I'm so disappointed that I'll leave this AFD for another closer to handle. Liz Read! Talk! 07:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All those points are fine and dandy, but we need articles about the person, not just listings in a database or a few lines in an article about something else. We can have articles on anything under the sun, from tiktok memes to food dishes to WW2 extermination camps to serial killers, but they all must have extensive sourcing about the "thing". Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1) per GNG: there is no significant coverage article about the person. per nom all the sources came from database and only a trivial mention. 2) per WP:NBAD clearly state tht notability for badminton players if they had a podium finish at tournaments of the BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix (until 2017) or the BWF World Tour or Super 100 level (from 2018 onwards). And fyi, the international tournament won by Dilshad Kamaludheen is a lower grade in badminton tournament (see the example of badminton tournament structure here--> 2023 BWF season, the Lagos International not a part of BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix or BWF World Tour. 3) still in WP:NBAD: there are only the winner and the runner-up who step on the podium in BWF Grand Prix Gold and Grand Prix (until 2017) or the BWF World Tour or Super 100 level (from 2018 onwards). So, how come the semi-finalists in the lower grade of badminton tournament meets the notability. 4) Never enter top 100 in the Badminton World Federation ranking. 5) Never competed in the BWF World Championships. 6) Never won the Indian National Badminton Championships. I hope User:Timothytyy can help and explain more about this.. Thanks Stvbastian (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Syed Sadique Hussain Sorry but under the current situation the article doesn't pass GNG and SNG. Even if you think the player has remarkable achievements, notability is based on SIGCOV and not how good are the subject's achievements. The reason I put "weak" is because we have difficulty in accessing and assessing the source, but after all, we cannot postpone a discussion just because of a single source. If you believe that you can find more reliable sources that provides independent SIGCOV to the subject, feel free to request draftification here or create a userpage with the same content and we will support you to develop a guideline-passing article. Regarding the nom, I admit that the user should have assumed good faith for all editors, including the ones who opposes the user's views but did not violate any conduct policies. The user has insisted on not dropping the stick, which may be considered as disruptive editing if the user fails to understand that there has been strong consensus on endorsing the first nomination's result. On the other hand, Indefensible should not have used a previous AfD/DRV outcome as an elaboration for a keep vote; after all, no consensus doesn't theoretically mean that it passes the guidelines, and consesnsus can change. I personally had some conflicts with the nominator quite a long time ago, but you should try to understand the user's stance, and that the user is just trying to do his job by nominating an article for deletion which fails GNG and SNG. I understand the nom's frustration that the article is still not deleted for a long time since his first nomination, but the nom should not have been that harsh anyway, so apologies for the user's irritating behavior towards you. Timothytyy (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My vote is the same as in the previous AFD, that is why I referred to it rather than making the same argument twice from 3 months ago which is hardly "a long time" ago. However I respect your response. - Indefensible (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please focus on source content and not history with editors to help establish consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - fairly low ranked player, passing references in RS. I'm not seeing much suggesting he is notable other than the banning/unbanning thing, which seems to me to be a single news event. JMWt (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Have already !voted, but the sourcing used just isn't acceptable for notability. Some of it is scant mentions, others a few lines. None of which is helpful, without other substantial articles about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is now semi'ed to stop the disruption. My only prior admin action was a relist, so I don't think this is an issue. Star Mississippi 13:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per source eval above and BEFORE that showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  19:07, 22 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. RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Mugu bus accident[edit]

2021 Mugu bus accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable news story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Coverage of the event constitutes a brief burst of news coverage made up of primary source breaking news articles that do not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:SUSTAINED. Textbook example of a bus plunge story. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As far as I can tell the coverage only lasted about 24-48 hours. Not an encyclopedic topic with WP:SUSTAINED coverage.
FatCat96 (talk) 16:44, 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. RL0919 (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moäng Ratu Dona Ines Ximenes da Silva of Flores[edit]

Moäng Ratu Dona Ines Ximenes da Silva of Flores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cannot find proof of existence or any claims re: Ximenes da Silva dynasty or other family members mentioned in article. External links do not seem reliable or verifiable. Kazamzam (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No results on Google Scholar and the only connections to Indonesia with "Ximenes da Silva" are with Thomas of Sikka, per Brill and Springerlink, and Alexius of Sikka, per De Gruyter and Springerlink. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 03:55, 20 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest U.S. post offices[edit]

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

WP:OR, fails WP:LISTN, and seems to be incorrect to boot (e.g. the Arastra post office was located higher while it existed) Fram (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Lists, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This list is neither original research nor a stand-alone list. All information is publicly available at the three sources provided. No United States post offices above 9,000 feet (2,743 m) elevation were opened prior to January 18, 1860. This list is of interest to postal historians. There is absolutely no need to delete this list. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 19:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is WP:OR either, but it is indeed a WP:Stand-alone list. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Much of the information contained in this list is cross-referenced in the List of post offices in Colorado, the List of ghost towns in Colorado, and the List of populated places in Colorado. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 19:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see any sources establishing why high-elevation post offices are notable as a class or that postal historians are interested; the article synthesizes a cross-reference of when post offices were open with their elevations without coverage of the topic specifically. It's not really that interesting to say that high-elevation towns have high-elevation post offices, etc. Reywas92Talk 19:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless further evidence of notability can be included. Right now, the article lists only one reference (a print book) that purports to consider the subject of high-elevation post offices in Colorado or the U.S. in general. I don't think that's enough to pass WP:LISTN muster, as on its face it is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. In other words, is there some fundamental reason why post offices at high elevation is a notable topic? Or is it simply on par with List of highest banks in the United States or List of highest courthouses in the United States, where it's not obvious why elevation has a particular connection to the topic. I normally oppose deletion of lists like this for notability reasons alone, or for casting them as mere trivia, and I want to find a way to a "keep", but as it stands this seems too far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable. Moreover, if elevation did have some relationship to post offices, I would think the list should then be organized by elevation rather than chronologically, with the latter being much closer to simply being trivia. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that is list may seem pointless to folks who who aren't interested in postal history or who don't live in a mountainous region, but the acquisition of a post office was seen by the residents of an early mining camp as conferring legitimacy on the community, and the higher the elevation of the camp the more important was that status. Folks in mountain communities care a great deal about these seemingly trivial facts as revealed in our tourism promotional materials. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 20:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I can follow that reasoning, but is there any sourcing to reflect it? See also Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Appropriate_topics_for_lists. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something like List of highest towns in the United States or list of highest settlements in the United States, while perhaps more difficult to define, would likely be easier to defend as a stand-alone list topic, and provide similar information, given that most towns have or had post offices. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is already List of cities in the United States by elevation. Perhaps the solution here is a redirect? Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it looks like regardless that list needs a new title, because it says "cities" when towns and other settlements are listed. We would need to verify that the lists match up, i.e. all of the top towns listed have post offices, and there aren't other populated places with extant post offices that aren't currently listed for some reason. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps a quick mention in THE highest post office's article, but it's really trivia at that point. As stated, there is nothing encyclopedic about the elevation of various post offices. I mean, they're all at a certain height above sea level, so why is one more notable than another? Oaktree b (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: If this article was modified and moved to List of highest post offices in Colorado, would it make it less objectionable? Just asking,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 20:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think the issue is the title or the fact that the highest of X in the U.S. happen to all be in Colorado, or whether or not additional entries outside of Colorado should be included, etc. I think the issue is whether post offices at extreme elevations is notable or not, regardless of how the geographical scope is defined. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since post offices are inanimate objects and cannot get high as an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. You might as well have a list of western-most barber shop in the US. Also remove autopatrolled right for article creator given how bad this creation was. Playing games with whether it's a list of the most X Ys, or a list of the most X Y over time is kind of beside the point. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move: I propose moving this article to Timeline of highest towns in the United States List of the highest U.S. town by date and modifying the criteria for inclusion to include incorporated municipalities, census-designated places, and unicorporated communities with a post office. This would substantially increase notability. I'm personally prepared to make whatever changes are required to this article. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 13:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on what sources? Fram (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, no, not a good idea at all, again WP:OR, going through primary sources and creating a new list based on them. Fram (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not original research. All information is taken from other Wikipedia articles. The external sources quoted above are merely to check that Wikipedia information is complete. After a review, they are. There are no U.S. towns above 6,998 feet (2,133 m) elevation that were established before January 17, 1860.
    I've requested that this article be moved to the List of the highest U.S. town by date. You may wish to comment. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 00:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SYNTH, an essential part of WP:OR: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. " This seems to be exactly what you are doing, both at the initial and at the planned article. Fram (talk) 10:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Duplicate !vote struck. Please only !vote once; if you wish to change your !vote, you can strike your old one and unstrike this one. But what you're proposing is a different article, so this isn't really a viable suggestion for this particular discussion anyway. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and this looks like a trivia. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This list is not trivial to those interested in the development of mining camps in the American West. This list has been completely revised and should be moved to List of the highest U.S. town by date. Thanks for your comment though.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 13:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This list is not of general interest and is only of interest to the those interested in the development of mining camps of the American West. I retract all previous comments.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 14:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A retro-Wikipedia article, with a subject like it's 2005 again. :) Doesn't look to pass WP:NLIST, sadly. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:22, 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 Rangpur Riders cricketers. Liz Read! Talk! 20:05, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Kumar (Bangladeshi cricketer)[edit]

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

There is no in-depth coverage, only passing mentions and stats. fails GNG. Non-notable cricketer stub X (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FatCat96 (talk) 16:52, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Druella Van Hengel[edit]

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

Notability cannot be demonstrated, media sources unavailable. GalianoP3 (talk) 14:02, 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. ✗plicit 14:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aks Swadhin[edit]

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

There is no in-depth coverage, only passing mentions and stats. fails GNG. Non-notable cricketer stub. X (talk) 11:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FatCat96 (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in absence of suitable redirect Fails WP:GNG, and given there isn't a suitable list to redirect to here per WP:ATD as he's played for a number of teams, none of which as a main team, delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:26, 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 14:17, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Musa[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer. No in-depth coverage, only passing mentions and stats. fails GNG. X (talk) 11:26, 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. ✗plicit 11:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Villawood East Public School[edit]

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

Prod removed without explanation. Primary schools are rarely notable. Sources provided are all primary. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 11:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment Targetinmotion (talk) 11:06, 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 keep‎. There is a clear consensus not to delete the article outright. There isn't a consensus on whether that means it should be kept or merged into a list, but that discussion can continue elsewhere. – Joe (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri Lowell[edit]

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

Article's reception were filled with passing mentions from the game reviews. Having hard time to find more per WP:BEFORE. Zero WP:SIGCOV. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 07:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Zero SIGCOV" is a serious allegation for an article that cites 40-odd sources. Are you willing to do a source analysis to prove this point? Per WP:SIGCOV, significant coverage [...] does not need to be the main topic of the source material so mentions within reviews may be significant or not significant but that would be revealed by a detailed source review. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per source analysis by Siroxo. You can't just say "WP:BEFORE" if you didn't actually do a BEFORE check. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And you cant assume those sources are sigcov without checking it. Unless, you're treating game reviews as sigcov for the character. Also, you still have something to do rather than WP:Hounding someone. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Siroxo did the source analysis that you didn't feel was necessary. Weird of you to accuse me of hounding when I commented on two of dozens(?) of your AFDs in the past week or so. Assume a little good faith before you cast WP:ASPERSIONS. You are also neither my teacher nor my mother, so please refrain from assigning me homework. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that wordings "You can't just say "WP:BEFORE" if you didn't actually do a BEFORE check" can be considered as an WP:ASPERSIONS or something else (not sure about the policies yet), but you can see below that KFM also disagreed. Still felt like you still have something after Balthier was deleted. Like, just let it go dude. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not an aspersion if Siroxo literally did the thing and made it obvious that you did not. Your AFD rationales here and at the other one are very short and not sufficient to demonstrate lack of notability for articles with 40+ sources. If your intention is to get something merged, start a merge discussion. I didn't even realize the Balthier merge was related to you in any way. Sounds like you're the one holding a grudge. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge...but reluctant. I'll admit it's a massively detailed article which gives me pause, but a lot of the sourcing seems reliant strictly on reviews and brief mentions. It's hard to say it stands apart on its own outside of the parent work. It's really well written for what's there so I'd rather be proven wrong if I'm missing a big source in that reception.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment I tried searching material like the one Luke has but surprisingly there's nothing even through the most common sources like RPGAamer or RPGFan. Same with schoolars.Tintor2 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources already in the article demonstrate WP:GNG beyond doubt. I read through the sources cited in the reception section. There are multiple anime reviews and multiple game reviews going in depth describing the character; the characters relationships with other characters; how the character fits in to the story, the world, and the game. Whether it occurs in reviews or other formats is immaterial if the coverage is there. Being relatively stingy with wordcounts about characters I see something like:
    1. AnimeNewsNetwork [5] with > 250 words of SIGCOV regarding the character.
    2. 1up.com [6], with > 150 words SIGCOV regarding the character.
    3. Japanator [7] has > 250 words SIGCOV regarding the character
    4. Fandom Post (A site with editorial staff, not to be confused with Fandom.com) [8] with > 250 words SIGCOV regarding the character.
    5. rpgamer [9] with > 150 words of SIGCOV regarding the character
    6. rpgamer [10] with > 100 words SIGCOV regarding the character
    7. Eurogamer [11] with > 100 words SIGCOV regarding the character
    8. Gamespot [12] with > 70 words SIGCOV regarding the character
We should have no trouble constructing a solid reception section and further details in the article with these sources, and indeed editors already have.
—siroχo 09:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of these seem to be just relaying what happened though, not actually discussing hte character. Generally building an article around *just* reviews doesn't work because it often doesn't demonstrate any reception or significance beyond that work.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These sources provide secondary character analysis that gives the reader an understanding of the significance of character without needing to go to the primary sources. We can summarize the secondary sources for an article. For my part, I have never heard of the specific anime or games prior to this AfD, and I feel reading these reviews I have a good understanding of the character now -- the way the character influenced the JRPG genre, the role the character fulfills within and between the stories, the translation from game to film, the narrative arc of the character beyond mere plot, etc.
    Some specific highlights of what I'm talking about (these examples are not comprehensive, I'm not trying to rewrite this article in the AfD):
    • Gay (Japanator) describes that this character affected the genre and stood out at the time -- this is in a review of the anime DVD, taking a retrospective look at the character from a game from several years ago.
    • Fitch (1up) describes how this character might relate to the publication's readers, and also describes how the character's story is more mature than expected from such a work
    • Prewitt (RPGamer) analyzes themes of one game, contrasting them with themes of other games and showing how this character is used in establishing such themes.
    I have not looked beyond these sources to dig up more, I didn't even check out the listicles in the article, because I don't need to for my own understanding. For WP:GNG, it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. keeping in mind specifically that "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. I am confident given the sources I listed above I could write a start class or better encyclopedia article on this subject without original research. —siroχo 20:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Siroxo Can you quote those " 250 words of SIGCOV regarding the character" from ANN? I just see a plot summary. Ditto for others. Where's the analysis? Can you quote some sentences about that character that are not just plot summary? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the list of characters from that game. The reception is long but traditionally built from SIGCOV-failing mentions in passing. That said, I insist on merge, not just redirect, as this is valuable content, researched from many said passing mentions. It should be preserved, but to keep this, we need to show SIGCOV is met, and I don't see any lenghty treatment of this chaeracter that is not jus a plot summary. Ping me if you disagree, preferably with quotations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge If every trivial mention in reviews was enough to merit a standalone character article, we'd have articles on every protagonist ever. The WP:SIGCOV is not there to support an article rather than just a list mention. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I'm not opposed to citing a review for notability if there's real sigcov in there, but a lot of the sources mentioned seem to just discuss Yuri's role in the plot. There's a couple things, like noting that he influenced the genre, but it's just not enough yet. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm satisfied that there are enough secondary sources that discuss the topic. Notably, the topic of the article doesn't necessarily have to be "More on Yuri Lowell", it can be okay as long as the parts that discuss the topic are significant and not in passing - the ANN review of the anime does a good job of this. If a merge is done, it should be a very "nice" merge to something like a Character list, not a merge that is really just a redirect to Tales of Vesperia. SnowFire (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Siroxo's source analysis provides strong justification that this article should be kept. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 07:17, 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 Hyde County Schools. That article doesn't actually mention WHYC, though, so at the moment this breaks WP:RASTONISH. – Joe (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WHYC[edit]

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

I see no evidence that this article meets GNG. All of the sources provided thus far are WP:PRIMARY government filings and a single trade publication news report. My BEFORE is turning up little in terms of useful material. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to redirect to Hyde County Schools My original vote was more of a weak keep than anything, and the sourcing was really thin without FCC links; it really doesn't help that the area served by the station doesn't even add up to 10,000 residents, so even when it was originating programming the only one likely sourcing it was the school itself and the on-air personnel. I yield to WC and Sammi's good explanation here, and I'm trying to adjust my AfD rationales in this area to be less ITEXISTS. I should also note even on the PRE website, I can't even really determine which network it broadcasts and outside the 'Android shakycam YouTube' disqualified source, it's just a true guess. Nate • (chatter) 18:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alas, the best I can offer is a redirect to Hyde County Schools, the station's owner, though that seems less than ideal for various reasons. (While the station is currently—but has not always been—a Public Radio East transmitter, the sourcing of that statement—an unlisted YouTube video posting of an unofficial recording of a station identification, which for multiple reasons should not count as a source at all in any sense—is so thin (if not, as I suggested, outright invalid for our purposes) that redirecting there does not appear to be the best, or in this case least-worst, course of action.) A 2021 RfC established that the overpresumption of notability once contained within the likes of NMEDIA (an essay that the aforementioned RfC established would not be given guideline status) and BCASTOUTCOMES was incorrect, and confirmed that GNG is this topic area's notability barometer. We require significant coverage, and the existing sources come up short there. (And the fact that it is currently broadcasting is by no means a reason to keep — that just means it exists, but as another essay points out, existence is not notability.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hyde County Schools To write at any detail level, this topic requires a local newspaper that is just plain unavailable. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Brdičko[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Sourced only to Youtube videos. Natg 19 (talk) 05:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -This does not meet notability standards for creative professionals. Jdweikler (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:15, 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 keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator with no opposes. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Eggers[edit]

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

This one sentence biography article has zero citations to establish notability. The one External link is to IMDb that describes the actors accomplishments, but no indepth content about the actor. After searching, unable to find sources to provide sufficient coverage. Created on 21 November 2005 JoeNMLC (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator - article now has a reference to establish notability. Thankyou for improving this one. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Swedish page is robust as an indication of notability and has 20 citations not from IMDb. Added one from the SV wiki, will continue to work on it further. Kazamzam (talk) 13:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Wp:GNG. Improvment done. BabbaQ (talk) 00:55, 20 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. (non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Dahl Jurgensen[edit]

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

This artist biography has zero citations to establish notability. The four External links are to websites that describe the artist's works, but no indepth content about the artist. After searching, unable to find sources to provide sufficient coverage. Created on 12 September 2007 JoeNMLC (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawn by nominator - article now has sufficient references to establish notability. Thankyou for improving this one. JoeNMLC (talk) 12:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Denmark. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I updated the article. WP:BEFORE shows he is in the British Museum collection. That makes him notable. Slim article, but I think it is a keep. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:46, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Day MDZ[edit]

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

Not convinced that there's enough independent coverage to satisfy WP:NBIO - seems to be sourced to advertorials/PR pieces. KH-1 (talk) 05:07, 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! 04:16, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Rattigan[edit]

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

Created by a single purpose editor. Most of the sources provided are architectural press, I could not find any coverage in more independent mainstream press. A search came up with a softball player of the same name. Fails WP:ARCHITECT and WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aydoh8 (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads very promotionally, with a quite a few of the references being to the subjects own firm. Notability is not established by the article itself. A Google search does not establish anything beyond what's already found in the article. TarnishedPathtalk 08:33, 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. Looks like there is a consensus among participating editors to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 02:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel, North Dakota[edit]

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

A little of a borderline case, as what little information I can get comes from the Ghosts of North Dakota website, which is questionable as a reliable source. At any rate there's nothing there now except a sign memorializing the school building which once stood here, and that was just about all there was to the place except a store mentioned in one of the comments to the post. The school didn't appear until 1922 and was supposedly the result of consolidating the other schools in the township. At any rate, I doubt that this adds up to a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: 47 people lived there in 2020. (The place is growing! 46 lived there during the 2010 census.)
Do we delete U.S. places with a population?
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The census numbers are for the whole township, not just this spot. Mangoe (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source makes reference to "city". Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, they are obviously wrong as soon as one looks at GMaps, as there simply is no town now. And at any rate, I looked directly at the township on the census website, and it gives a population of 46 for the township. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to the 2010 census the population was 46. After 10 years, in 2020, the city had an estimated population of 47 inhabitants.
https://www.mapsof.net/isabel-nd
and no it is not a wikipedia mirror, i added the info to the wikipedia page. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and it has been listed in the USGNI Database since February 13, 1980 PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 02:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please go read WP:GNIS, as we have been working for some years now getting rid of all the spurious places entered as "unincorporated communities" in WP. And please go look at the place in GMaps. Is there really a possibility that 46 people live in a sign and a ruined building? As I said before, I looked directly in the census, not on some aggregator site, and it says the township has a population of 46. A township is not the same as a town; it's a subdivision of a county in the the same way that a county is a subdivision of a state. It's an area, not a spot. Isabel-the-supposed-town has no population, because there is nothing there but a sign and the ruins of a house or farm structure. You have to check all these sources against each other. Mangoe (talk) 17:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Accourding to google maps what you have said is not true: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Isabel,+ND+58332/@48.0628577,-99.6603015,2883m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x52db9eadd7598a43:0x5a1e15bbd3435067!8m2!3d48.0647286!4d-99.6534652!16s%2Fm%2F04b7spm?entry=ttu PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What am I supposed to be seeing? The text on the left is simply our article: click on "more" if you don't believe me. If you zoom in on the marked spot, there is nothing there but plants and roads. If you go to street view at the spot and look north, you can see the sign that marks the location of the former school, and that's it. How are there 47 people here? Mangoe (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what I am sayig is that there are buildings/ remnent of buildings PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
also The GNIS was not corrupt in 1980. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination and the nominator's subsequent presented facts. TH1980 (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:•Delete - We have enough info to know it was/is a community, though we don't have enough information to include it in a wikipedia article. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep MERGE to Isabel, township Keep since multiple sources mention clearly Isabel and not Isabel twp.
    If both are the same town merge to isabel township. — Preceding unsigned comment added by बिनोद थारू (talk • contribs) 01:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also newspaper source are:
    Roundup Record-Tribune & Winnett Times - Jul 26, 2006 - page 3
    The Calgary Herald - ‎Nov 6, 1939 - page 8
    They mention some citizens from Isabel, ND.
    Finally The American Missionary - Volume 77 - Page 551 (1923) mentions the Church of Isabel, ND, so KEEP.

बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it looks like it at least was populated based on some historical source searching and therefore passes WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 09:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

●Delete- We have enough info to know it was/is a community, though we don't have enough information to prove weather it is notable, and not enough information to include it in a wikipedia article. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— Duplicate !vote: PaulGamerBoy360 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11 - Because this is a relisting the votes above do not count. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're only allowed to vote once in a discussion - the fact that this has been relisted doesn't mean all the votes above it don't count. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PaulGamerBoy360, you are only allowed to case one "vote", no matter how many times the discussion is relisted. Have you participated in many AFDs because this is a basic practice in deletion discussions. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:GEOLAND policy above and historical source brought up by myself.
"Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.[1][2]"
Legal recognition is US census of course
बिनोद थारू (talk) 01:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
●Keep- New Information and sources have been added to the article have inclined me to change my !vote to keep. PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Isabel Township. I'm fine with keep but I checked NARA: Post Office Reports of Site Locations, 1837–1950, for Benson County and unless it was misfiled I don't think it ever had a post office. I cant find it on any old USGS maps (although that's somewhat of a crapshoot because, you know, time and space and the historical record). But also this township plat map does not give me confidence that Isabel was ever a distinct settled place. I think at most Isabel (v Isabel Twp) was a crossroads or a road sign where people said they were from, but also it's hard to prove a negative and/or with rural locations the notability standards have to be a little more flexible IMHO. jengod (talk) 19:24, 20 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 Baron Hawke. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William Hawke, 12th Baron Hawke[edit]

William Hawke, 12th Baron Hawke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO / WP:GNG. BEFORE turned up no other suitable sources that would help meet the general notability guideline. Burke's Peerage is a tertiary source that provides no SIGCOV besides routine information (DOB, parents and children), and Peerage News is a self-published source. Ultimately, Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries. Possible redirect target: Baron Hawke. Pilaz (talk) 02:27, 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 redirect‎ to Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya. ✗plicit 00:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Patiala[edit]

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

Only primary sources provided. No coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 24 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! 02:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. If someone who knows Punjabi can look into it, it would be helpful, but I found no RS. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Again, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:10, 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. – Joe (talk) 08:51, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soben Huon[edit]

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

Subject doesn't meet any notability criteria either as a beauty pageant winner or anything else. Let'srun (talk) 02:01, 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! 02:10, 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! 02:10, 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! 01:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Mumbai hospital fire[edit]

2021 Mumbai hospital fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable event. Only a brief burst of breaking news coverage that does not fulfill WP:GNG or WP:SUSTAINED. Thebiguglyalien (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 speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Charles Ndukauba[edit]

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

Article about a singer that fails WP:NMUSICBIO or WP:ANYBIO. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No indication of notability. Fails to meet criteria of WP:GNG. Not enough sources to confirm intrinsic value of an article.
ContributorMix (talk) 21:25, 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 no consensus‎. I see no consensus, leaning Keep. My instinct is to Drafity but as PantheonRadiance points out, this article was a draft and was accepted (see [14]) so I'm reluctant to return it to Draft space. It sounds like the problems that have occured since it was accepted can be remedied by editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott the Woz[edit]

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

Article were only filled with unreliable sources. WP:BEFORE shows nothing. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 09:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Love Scott but there's not much sources, hopefully he can pick some up soon since he's my favorite Youtuber. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 15:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to Draft: Needs better third-party sources, but otherwise. Decent article. — 216.49.130.5 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify; This is an incredibly popular YouTuber that I watch myself, but he hasn't gotten much coverage and the article should probably be moved to draftspace. I did manage to find this from Nintendo Life, which doesn't say anything except say that he exists, but that's pretty much all I could get. NegativeMP1 18:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If consesus is that notability is not met, a redirect to List of programs broadcast by G4#Final programming could be appropriate. IanTEB (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while the article has many primary sources (in line with WP:SPS), to say that it only consists of unreliable sources is erroneous. He meets WP:WEB and WP:GNG. For example, PC Games, a reliable source per WP:VG/RS, wrote a lengthy review of his content in 2021. Automaton, reliable per the Chinese VG/RS, also wrote an article discussing one of his videos. PopCulture, while not fully discussed, also seems like a fairly reliable media outfit. Finally, Plugged In wrote a review of his content as well. There are also sources from Screen Rant, Game Rant and CBR, but seeing as how they've been quite divisive here owing to Valnet, I'd understand omitting them for proving notability (besides perhaps CBR). PantheonRadiance (talk) 07:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I think the PC Games article is the only valuable source here. Popculture cab be fine, but isn't a receptuon at all. Meanwhile, there's no proof that Automan and Plugged in are reliable, plugged is def unreliable. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure any of those are reliable sources though... Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Greenish Pickle! @Sergecross73 I get that PopCulture hasn't been discussed enough to determine its reliability. But on the "other reliable" section of VG/RS, PC Games is listed there. I posted on the talk page nearly two years ago that it was used in an FA-review for Paper Mario, and it does have an editorial staff (EIC wrote the article). Speaking of FAs, Plugged In was used as attributed opinion for Wizards of Waverly Place, so I think it should also be usable for said purposes here. Finally, the Chinese VG/RS has a lengthy discussion a while back concluding Automaton was fairly reliable. PantheonRadiance (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point on PC Games, but I'm still uncertain that there's enough here to write a WP:BLP article around though. Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, although this article's more about the web series rather than the creator (a draft of Scott himself was declined a while back). While I personally believe it's enough, I can understand otherwise if not. PantheonRadiance (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG. PCGames.de is reliable and has over 700 words of SIGCOV of the subject. No reason to doubt PopCulture.com is reliable[15][16], over 400 words of SIGCOV of the subject. No reason to doubt Atomaton is reliable[17], hard to wordcount, but Google translates it to ~1000 words. —siroχo 08:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PC games and Popculture are the only one reliable sources,others were unreliable. Plus, building an article around *just* brief mention or short review like doesn't work because it often doesn't demonstrate any reception or significance beyond that work. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 18:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes Atomaton unreliable? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify - As per above discussion that deep coverage on the show not available and WP:NOTJUSTYET Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is supposed to be an article on the show not the person PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. As much as I love Scott the Woz, I feel like the sourcing is just not quite good enough yet for an article. I suspect that this will change sooner rather than later, though. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 07:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as an article of the series - rather than the person - per PantheonRadiance. IanTEB (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: not as a BLP but as an article about the web series. The reliability of some of the sources can be disputed, but I think that the ones provided are enough to pass GNG. StartOkayStop (talk) 19:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per PantheonRadiance. I personally feel that the sources should be enough to satisfy GNG regarding the web series/show. Padgriffin Griffin's Nest 16:03, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors are divided between those advocating Draftification and those who want to Keep this article and argue that it's a show about a series, not a BLP.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:53, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Tiny amount of coverage on his show on the relaunch of G4 [18] in ScreenRant, an iffy source. I'll keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge Long way to GNG with paltry sourcing. Best I can suggest is to put a brief mention of his show in a section in the G4 article. Might be a thing in the future, enough to get him some amount of coverage... Sources just aren't there to be able to make a stand-alone article about this streamer. Oaktree b (talk) 03:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oaktree b ...So what about the sources we discussed above? You don't agree that those are reliable enough to contribute to notability? PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a regular viewer of Scott the Woz and as per PantheonRadiance. This article is about the series, not the person itself (Scott the Woz is the icon of the series, but it also has several other characters in there). Though some sources are questionable, I think the article as a whole meets WP:GNG with the remaining reliable sources. Also, Scott The Woz is a popular channel with over 1.8 million subscribers (though subscriber counts don't necessarily confirm notability, I feel that YouTube channels with over 1 million subscribers have a point in notability). And... well, the channel is influential enough to indirectly disrupt Wikipedia every time they mention it (such as Wii Music (deletion discussion)). ᐱᔌᕬᐱɭᕮ ᐱᒧᐱᕬ (Talk) 10:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As this notability review from last year has noted, there's at best three sources indicating notability, and maybe not even that. The article is also filled to the brim with primary sources. Cortador (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note this the article's deletion was posted to the Scott the Woz subreddit at 14/09/23 09:08:54 2023 UTC [19] Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: It seems like almost all are opposing deletion of the article, with SKmaric saying "I always found it odd that Wikipedia's "no primary sources" standard basically means, you can't write something and link to the actual source, but someone else can write the same thing in a news article or research paper, and then it's okay to be written on Wikipedia.", and JoePCool14 saying "Wikipedia is kinda shooting itself in the foot lately with their new policies from what I've heard. This might be another example of that...". |)are2|_eap (Talk) 23:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      What users outside Wikipedia - who evidently don't understand its policies - think does not matter. Cortador (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      These are random users on Reddit that have no understanding of how Wikipedia notability and policies work, and we shouldn't use that to judge a vote. Granted, I wouldn't expect an average person to, I still don't know every policy myself and I've been here for months, but my point still remains. What could possibly be something to Note is this comment, confusing an AfD for being a democracy and telling those with an account here to oppose deletion as a result. NegativeMP1 20:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For the record and for those advocating to draftify, Scott the Woz was already a draft before. Someone created the draft back in early 2021, a couple months after it was deleted in October 2020 per this AfD. Following the draft's creation, the article was repeatedly declined in AfC before being finally accepted in July 2022, due to sources such as PC Games and Screen Rant/CBR appearing in the draft. So to draftify an article that had already went through so many good faith edits and had its notability vetted doesn't sit right with me. I feel the only reason it was nominated was because the article admittedly became filled with lots of primary sources and overly detailed fancruft between its AfC acceptance and now. As a result, it masked the notability of the series unintentionally. Regardless of if it does get kept or draftified again, the article should probably be rewritten to include less fancrufty info and more info from these sources. PantheonRadiance (talk) 08:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For those wanting to draftify/delete this article, keep in mind that, although the channel's coverage is very limited relative to its subscriber count, I added many citations to this article, especially the Fundraising & Television broadcast section. Also, if you look at the AfD talk page, there is an unregistered user who wanted to keep this article and said that it is well-made and very important for Scott the Woz fans. Am I allowed to port it over to this discussion so that it becomes a vote? Because it's clear they wanted to keep this article. |)are2|_eap (Talk) 07:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously meets GNG, per discussion and text sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep with a cleanup to remove superfluous extra information and focus on the show instead of the person. It seems to me like the sources are there to justify an article, but there's a lot of extra information that doesn't really need to be there. Thanksolotl (talk) 18:20, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grey Blackwell[edit]

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

Non-notable artist / animator. Natg 19 (talk) 01:23, 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 no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Schiemer[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Most of the supplied sources are not WP:SIGCOV about him. LibStar (talk) 01:14, 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! 01:08, 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! 01:03, 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 redirect‎ to List of Sylhet Division cricketers. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 00:41, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Hanif[edit]

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

There is no in-depth coverage, only passing mentions and stats. fails GNG. X (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable cricket player with very few reliable sources on him. Fails WP:GNG
FatCat96 (talk) 00:56, 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 merge‎ to Media in Bihar#Internet. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bihar Times[edit]

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

Bihar Times does not have substantial coverage in credible and independent sources, which renders it insufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. It Fails WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG.

Furthermore, the initial website that was mentioned in article 'bihartimes.in' redirects to an unknown spam link, casting doubt on its legitimacy as a reliable news portal. Saurabh{Talk} 00:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, India, and Bihar. Saurabh{Talk} 00:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At first I thought this was going to be a no-brainer delete, but their official website appears to be Bihartimes.news, not bihartimes.com or bihartimes.in. It's real, now we need to see whether it's notable. EDIT: Okay, I checked around and it looks like a newspaper called Bihar Times has been around since 1894 but fell into disrepair in recent years: [20] But according to the Wikipedia article's current sources, these might be two different publications [21]. This one's complicated. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:31, 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! 00:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I found this link to a more reliable Bihar Times Site: https://www.bihartimes.news PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There may have been a newspaper called "Bihar Times" in the 1990s. However, recent news websites like "Bihartimes.news," etc., are not the same publication and appear to be unreliable. Apart from that, no sources have been provided in the article to claim the news portal as unbiased and reliable. Saurabh{Talk} 03:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Media in Bihar § Internet, which currently has a mention, as WP:ATD-M. —siroχo 07:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_September_14&oldid=1177019477"