Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 01 September 03 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vengalil family[edit]

Vengalil family (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 family. One of the members of this family V. K. Krishna Menon was a notable figure, but that does not mean the family becomes notable by association. No references provided in the page since it was created ages ago and none found on a search as well, indicating our notability standards are not met. Was created by an editor who has spent considerable time editing V. K. Krishna Menon indicating that they may somehow be associated with the subject of this article (probably a member of the family). Jupitus Smart 01:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References seem easy enough to find? Cf:
"The frontiers of expansion of cultivation were set by the dominant landowning tharavadus like those of the Vengayil Nayanar, who held two lakh acres of land"
"This steady intrusion on the forests had two consequences. First, it brought the new breed of cultivators into competition with the tribal groups practising slash-and-burn cultivation of hill rice. Secondly, it brought to light the existence of bonded labour-both tribal and untouchable caste - in what had been remote fast nesses penetrated only by the overseers of dominant tharavadus like Kalliatty and Vengayil. In 1939, a delegation of the All India Students’ Federation visiting north east Chirakkal had to inform the tribal inhabitants that it was the British and not the Vengayil Nayanar who ruled the country.72"
"One of the most illustrious Nayar tharavadus of north Malabar is Kodoth in what is now the Kasargod district of Kerala. The Kodoth family practiced hypergamy. In fact, the famous Vengalil family headquartered near Calicut was formed when a girl of the Kodoth family entered into a sambandham union with a Thirumulpad."
"The family papers of Koodali Thazhathu Veedu show that the family had maintained marriage relations with almost all major landowning tarawads of the region like the Kalliat family, Vengalil family..."
"A 3000-strong jatha marched from Korome, Erima and other places to meet their landlord, the Vengayil Valia Nayanar in October 1938. After a discussion lasting three hours the jenmi agreed to give up the important feudal levies like vast and nuri and to use the standard measure for rent in kind... The early peasant jathas were directed at some of the biggest landlords of Malabar. The Chirakkal Raja's family owned about 30,000 acres; the Vengayil Nayanar family owned over 200,000 acres, including forest lands; the Kurumathoor Namboodiripad owned 5615 acres and the Kalliat jenmi had 36,779 acres in his possession.
"Out of the 689.17 acres of land owned by the temple 589.07 acres were held on lease by one single family, the family of Vengayil Nayanar, a prominent landowning family of North Malabar."
These are all from academic sources unconcerned with Krishna Menon, which recurrently call the family "dominant", "prominent", "major", "famous", and so on.
Meanwhile, maintaining that VK Krishna Menon is the only notable member of the family is also bizarre. VK Nayanar more or less invented the short story and satire in Malayalam and is canonically one of the most influential figures in Malayalam literature. VK Chinnammalu Amma was a central figure in Malayali feminism and literature. Raman Menon was the Dewan of Travancore. VA Janaki was the chair of the geography department at Baroda College/Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda and a leading Indian geographer, especially of Kerala. All are discussed as such in the literature. It's not clear to me how exactly Sir C.P. Ramaswami Iyer is related to the Vengalils, but he's definitely notable. Etc. 2806:107E:15:1C4A:482E:D3E6:D000:7389 (talk) 02:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear where you are quoting these lines from. Having 1-2 notable people like Vengayil Kunhiraman Nayanar and V. K. Krishna Menon does not make the family notable. Also, the entire country was ruled over by many feudal vassals in the 1800s. None of these references indicate that the family was any better than the other feudal landlords who also owned lands. Jupitus Smart 11:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rather than quoting some unknown source, please provide a link or some specific references which other editors can verify. Sources don't have to be online but they have to be identified and not merely referred to as part of your search results.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article references 2 books. Has anyone looked at these?
  • Krishna Menon: A Biography by T. J. S. George (1965)
  • V. K. Krishna Menon: a personal memoir by Janaki Ram (1997)
Why wouldn’t these establish notability? The first book is about one Menon but it could cover other family members.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you. It looks as though the author of this article was trying to pen down his egoistic thoughts into wiki. Just 2 or 3 notable members from the family does not make the family themselves notable(Also Vengayil kunhiraman nayanar was from the vengayil family, which is another family. The Vengalil's were a Menon family). There were many menon families who related to royals of kerala by marriage and this seems like an advertising campaign for the family. In addition to that, as you mentioned, there are no proper sources. Many such Menon families like the Ankarath, Vadakke kuruppath, Ambat etc. were equally wealthy and produced eminent personalities but I don't see them having a separate wiki page. Like I mentioned in the Talk page, this article needs to strictly kept to family discussions and blogs rather than on Wikipedia. I completely agree with you on the deletion of this article from Wikipedia. Pedia.01110 (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I believe the IP's comments are, in effect, an unbolded "Keep" so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: No indication the family is notable. Notable individuals don't make the family notable per above.  // Timothy :: talk  01:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:MILL, and WP:NOTINHERITED. The argument for "keep" appears to be that there have been books written about the family, without evidence that this is significant coverage, or that the books themselves are reliable sources. By all accounts, this is a run of the mill, land-owning caste or clan. With the exception of Presidential families or very well-known celebrities, families of even famous or notable people are not by themselves notable as a group, and arguments otherwise are untenable, based on 20-plus tears of precedent here at AfD. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Lena Zavaroni. Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Zavaroni on Broadway[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2022 DonaldD23 talk to me 00:08, 27 August 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 to Lena Zavaroni
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I am comfortable with a merge. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Krier[edit]

Lena Krier (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 Luxembourg women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least three caps for the Luxembourg women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diāna Skribina[edit]

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

The subject has earned four caps for the Latvia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Kazlauska[edit]

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

The subject has earned one cap for the Latvia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per a lack of GNG-passing sources. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 20:53, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Asnāte Lindermane[edit]

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

The subject has earned two caps for the Latvia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Josselyn[edit]

Lewis Josselyn (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)

Bringing this to AfD as one of a large walled garden of early Carmel-by-the-Sea residents. Sources all seem very local, and are generally brief mentions (or just photo credits) of the subject - not seeing how WP:NBIO is met. Melcous (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Typically fluffy contribution and, indeed, part of a walled garden. I looked at the sourcing: it's too skinny. Besides an obituary, there's nothing specifically about him; the rest of the sourcing are captions and more or less incidental mentions. It's a shame, cause I'm all about local historians and whatnot, but this one does not meet the GNG. Oh, please note the history, to see a section that was basically a kind of resume. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DrmiesIs this just a comment of did you mean to place a !vote too? Graywalls (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Graywalls, I think it will be obvious to the closing administrator where I'm going with this, but if you need my vote, it's "delete", of course. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I would hope, but the discussion is starting to drag on, so for simplicity sake at the end when quantity could matter, it could be useful to have to have the bold !vote. Graywalls (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article is indeed part of a large walled garden of articles, that not only focus on Carmel/Pebble Beach/Monterey Peninsula; but also relate to the Henderson/Ford extended family in some way. The article creator has created many articles that involve his family, and their homes, businesses, friends and and other affairs. The connection in this article was that Lewis Josselyn was a "close friend" of Byington Ford, a relative of the creator. These articles are frequently referenced to hyper-local sources and primary sources, or the sources simply mention their name. Additionally and even more concerning, is that the content of these articles often does not match what the sources actually say, they are embellished with exaggerations, here-say, original research and puffery. The photographer who is the subject of this article is run of the mill, one of hundreds if not thousands of local photographers in California. After clean up, basically what we are left with is: he was born, got married, had a job as a commercial photographer, he died and his wife donated his photos to various local places. That he owned camera equipment and made photographs does not make him inherently notable; that his photos were sometimes published along with a "photo credit" does not confer notability. The article fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Netherzone Netherzone 15:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I authored this article independently, but do not have any familial or personal connections to Josselyn. My interest lies in the exploration of topics related to Monterey County, California, a region where I spent my formative years.
  • Lewis Josselyn's life and work have garnered extensive attention in both primary and secondary sources. If you're interested in delving into the biography of a pioneering California photographer known for his early contributions to Monochrome photography, this is a must-read. Josselyn had close associations with the artist Jo Mora and held the prestigious position of the official photographer for the Forest Theater. His lens captured iconic figures such as Robinson Jeffers and documented the restoration efforts at the Carmel Mission, also known as the Mission San Carlos Borromeo de Carmelo. Note that some of the content you currently see in the article has been removed by individuals known as Netherzone and Melcous. To access the previous version, please revert to this iteration.
  • Best known for his historic record in photography for central and northern California, including California Missions, Yosemite, the redwoods, life in Carmel and the Monterey Bay area, and the building of Highway 1 along the Big Sur coast--including the construction of Bixby Creek Bridge [1]
  • Has a collective body of work in the mid 1920s to the mid 1940s that served as fundamental points of reference for artist Jo Mora and his Pebble Beach studio recreated in the Jo Mora Collection at the Monterey History Art Association.[2]
  • Lewis Josselyn's legacy is well-documented, with a substantial presence in various media outlets and archives:
  • His work has been cited in 21 newspaper articles, including mentions in The Californian and the Carmel Pine Cone.
  • A collection of 277 images by Josselyn can be found on California Revealed, among other repositories.
  • Tom Leyde, the author, credited Josselyn for contributing two historical photographs, one of the Carmel Mission and the other of Robinson Jeffers' Hawk Tower. Notably, Josselyn's widow generously entrusted 3,000 negatives to Pat Hathaway, a local photographer, as detailed in the statement: "Hathaway’s archive got its start in 1970 when he acquired a collection of photos from the widow of the late local photographer Lewis Josselyn."
  • Josselyn's extensive collection stands as a valuable resource, offering invaluable insights to historians, scholars, writers, journalists, reporters, teachers, and students alike.
  • His photographs have been featured in numerous books, including Cannery Row and Big Sur.
  • He is in the esteemed company of photographers from the Monterey Peninsula, including luminaries such as Ansel Adams and Edward Weston.

Greg Henderson (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, why did you modify my signature to unlink my talk page? Netherzone (talk) 17:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source Analysis - 1: Not SIGCOV[1] Published letters by a different person, source has two sentences on Josselyn, one mentions that he's a photographer; the second sentence states: I cannot get the [photo] negative of the reproduction without difficulty – the man who did it – Lewis Josselyn – (French family living here in Carmel) is a bit eccentric and would think I didn't like his work and so on or wonder wheter I wanted to have his negative criticized. 2. Not SIGCOV [2] three photo-credits. 3. Obituary in small, hyper-local weekly newspaper.[3] (probably submitted by family, The Carmel Pinecone states where to send obituaries) - standard obit content, he was born, married, had a photography job, died. 4. Not SIGCOV[4] four photo credits. 5. Not SIGCOV[5] one photo credit in small regional paper. 6. Not SIGCOV. [6] one photo credit. 7. Not SIGCOV[7] Article is on another person; one photo credit. 8. Not SIGCOV[8] A brief unattributed opinion/quote in a small, hyper-local weekly newspaper. 9. Not SIGCOV[9] name check only. Hyper local, small weekly paper. 10. Not SIGCOV. [10] two sentences about his work in a local show that his widow provided photographs. 11. Not SIGCOV[11] article is about another person; there is one sentence mentioning Josselyn. Therefore does not meet WP:GNG either. Netherzone (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how are the principles of WHYN addressed by deletion? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The source for death date is the Carmel Pine Cone. Looking at the date of the digitized page I see 1963, yet the record states 1964. No exact birth or death dates are given in the obituary.--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Birth and Death dates are fixed in the Request Edits on the article's Talk:Lewis Josselyn page. Please see all Request Edits before deleting this article. Greg Henderson (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Netherzone's source analysis showing there is insufficient evidence of notability. I've also reviewed the requested edits on the article talk page, and even if they were all added to the article, the subject of the article still fails each the four unique notability criteria of WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. On a side note, I also found a Find-a-Grave listing confirming his 1964 death, and his burial at Golden Gate National Cemetery, but that is a moot point for our purposes, since the subject does not meet notability criteria. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed a peculiar thing....the Find a Grave listing is a perfect example of why we should not be using any user-submitted content like Find a Grave. The article Lewis Josselyn and Find A Grave both list his death date as March 14, 1964.[12]
    However, his obituary which was printed in the Carmel Pine Cone clearly shows the date of the newspaper itself as March 19, 1963. (look at the upper right hand corner of page 16, on the print copy of the newspaper, not what Internet archive states as the "publication date", which is probably a human error.)[13] How could there be an obit for his death from 1963 if he didn't die until 1964? Unless he time traveled. ;-)
    Also upon examining the photo of the grave stone itself on the Find a Grave listing, it shows his death date as 1961, two years before the obituary, and three years before the FInd A Grave text entry for his death date. It is possible that he died in 1961, but the obituary was not published by the Carmel Pine Cone until 1963 (possibly submitted by his family as an afterthought?) Either way we should not be using Ancestry.com, FamilySearch.com, Find-a-Grave, or other similar genealogy sites as reliable sources. They are fine for family memorial content, but they are not up to snuff for the encyclopedia.
    None of this has an effect on his notability or lack thereof, but rather that there is very little known of him, the primary sources are not accurate, and it's far too nebulous to state in the article what year he died. If he was an important artist there would be multiple reviews in art magazines, notable museum shows, an obit in a larger paper like the San Francisco Chronicle, and what we would normally find for a notable photographer. To compare him to Ansel Adams or Edward Weston has no merit. Netherzone (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am beginning to wonder if there were more than one Lewis Josselyn, and that the article, as well as some of the user-submitted ancestry sites have inadvertently mixed the two up? Just a thot..... Netherzone (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are correct, in error I missed the gravestone photo's listing his death in 1861. Also, his wife's name on the gravestone is "Augustine", not Jeane. So I think your thought that there is more than one Lewis Josely is correct, and the submission at Find-a-Gravehas mixed two different people. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is exactly why Wikipedia editors should not interpret primary source on their own. Graywalls (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But in this instance, the secondary source is also problematic. It has two different dates:1963 is the year in the heading on pp.2-16, but the front page headers gives the date as March 19, 1964. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is pretty obvious that the date is March 19, 1964 as provided in (a) first published page, and (b) the publishing date of the Pine Cone article. The date is also verifiable based on the date of death, which is published on the California Death Index (source already provided on Talk page via government records). Greg Henderson (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article creator has numerous edit requests in talk page. Not that I think they really help, but just a FYI. I think we should just be aware, but not implement the ERs until AfD is wrapped up in order to not waste time so. Graywalls (talk) 03:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Notability is the condicio sine qua non, in the absence of which, additions or corrections would be a waste of time. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Based on the above, the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guidelines state that:
    • "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field:" In this case, Lewis Josselyn is widely recognized with the eduring historical record in field of photography for the nationally recognized Forest Theater.[3]
    • In addition, according to the guidelines "The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary:" Accordingly, Lewis Josselyn is listed in the Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists here. Based on the above, he is can be presumed notable. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I cannot imagine upon what basis you consider a biography of Carmel and Berkeley artists to be a "country's standard national" biography. Seriously? It's hard not to consider claiming so an insult to our intelligence. Ravenswing 22:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I have included two criteria, his widely recognized contribution to photography. And the 2nd criteria based on the life and writing of Jennie V. Cannon, one of California’s more important female artists and on contemporary sources from the first half of the 20th century. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        That is not an answer to my statement. You claim that the Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists constitute an an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary. Defend it or retract it. (What Cannon has to do with anything, I can neither see, nor have you explained the same.) Ravenswing 23:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        The book, Jennie V. Cannon: The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies, Vol. 1, has detailed biographical information, not only about Lewis Josselyn, but about more than 200 other artists. Therefore, it considered a standard biographical WP:RS resource with WP:BASIC information. This biography is a published secondary source that is reliable, and independent of the subject. Greg Henderson (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, that is not a Dictionary of National Biography, that is a small regional compendium. There is a huge difference. Also, the fact that his widow donated his photos to a local library and a local private collection is not the same as having his work curated into a notable museum or national gallery collection - collections that are vetted by a curatorially trained art historians and by the museum's acquisitions board. Sorry. Netherzone (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You will, perhaps, forgive us for having some healthy skepticism over your assertions regarding proper sourcing, given the numerous COI and sourcing issues that led to your current indefinite block from editing in articlespace ... your connections to the subject of this AfD included. Ravenswing 01:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Collection of Historical Photographs
  2. ^ Jo Mora Studio
  3. ^ "20th-Century California Photographers". Pat Hathaway Photo Collection. Retrieved 2022-07-14.
  • Delete: Netherzone's analysis is persuasive. I commend to the keep proponents WP:SIGCOV, which restricts the applicability of sources as reliable to those providing "significant coverage to the subject." Namedrops are not sigcov.
    Beyond that, people claiming that the subject meets the "widely recognized contribution" criterion are ignoring the explanatory note, which holds "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books in that field, by historians." No such coverage has been asserted or demonstrated. Photo captions are not sigcov. Ten photo captions just end up as 0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 22:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm gonna say "keep". Even though most of the sources cited are California sources, Josselyn's work was published in quite a few books that are cited in the article and in the article's Talk page edit requests, and his photographs form the core of an important historical photo collection. BTW, an even more notable person is Pat Hathaway, who is cited in 18 Wikipedia articles so far. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was able to locate some of his photos published in a book about Carmel-by-the-Sea rather than artistic merit. Sometimes, it's about having having free photos, or affordable accessible photos. A great deal of Wikipedia editors are published photographers, under their Commons name. Why? Because magazines, newspapers, authors are writing about something and they're looking for photos that works out for their story and pretty much any relevant photos they can casually use will do, and per CC-BY-SA licensing, photographers get credited. This doesn't make them "notable published photographers". Graywalls (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Josselyn has a collective body of work in the mid 1920s to the mid 1940s with artist Jo Mora that served as fundamental points of reference for artist Jo Mora and his Pebble Beach studio recreated in the [Monterey History & Art Association Jo Mora exhibit https://www.mayohayeslibrary.org/uploads/2/5/3/9/25392173/vol_52_num_3_fall_2009.pdf]. He is also best known for his historic record in Collection of Historical Photographs photography for central and northern California. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to show that this photographer is notable. Posting a huge wall of comments isn't going to help keep this article if those comments are along the lines of "He is in the esteemed company of photographers from the Monterey Peninsula, including luminaries such as Ansel Adams and Edward Weston." Notability is not inherited by living on the same peninsula. Elspea756 (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AMOUNT comes to mind. Graywalls (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Josselyn has significant coverage in reliable sources here, and here, Photographs by Lewis Josselyn and here. Greg Henderson (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - James Perry, Executive Director of the Monterey County Historical Society, is curator of the Pat Hathaway collection of historical photos. He is excited about the recent 2021 gift from the Pat Hathaway collection that incldues the Lewis Josselyn's photos.[1] Sheila Sobell of the Dialy Record wrote the article, Saving a Glimpse Of Old California and talks about Josselyn, who had come to the Monterey area in 1914, had some 5,000 5-by-7 negatives documenting its history. Included were images of Carmel Mission (and all other California Missions); the construction of Bixby Creek Bridge in 1932; Highway 1 along the Big Sur coast; and famous Carmel poet Robinson Jeffers, taken in 1929. Sobell goes on to quote Hathaway, "Photographers are the keepers of our history, but they seldom get acknowledgment."[2] Greg Henderson (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    okay..? and... ? Graywalls (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For WP:BASIC, Josselyn has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources including numerous books, magazines, and newspapers regarding his historical photographs. For WP:ANYBIO Josselyn has been a recognized major contributor that is part of the enduring historical record in the field of photography (see above citations). Greg Henderson (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is where you lose me - someone who took photographs at a particular time, that were then later realised to be of local historical value, is a far stretch from someone who is a "recognised major contributor ... in the field of photography." That would require evidence from well outside his local neighbourhood to substantiate and I'm not seeing it. Melcous (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source below doesn't even mention Josselyn. The second source does, but again its major focus is Hathaway. I'm not sure these count as more than local coverage, but even if they do, that would be for Hathaway, not Josselyn. Melcous (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The two citations point to Josselyn's contribution to Monterey County Historical Society via Pat Hathaway. Josselyn is listed in the Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists in in Jennie V. Cannon's The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies." Her published art reviews appeared for decades in regional newspapers and her recognition of Josselyn is reliably covered as part of this review. Why would you want to delete a historical photographer? Have you even seen his works? They are amazing![3] Greg Henderson (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm. We do not have Wikipedia articles based on how "amazing" someone's pictures are. We have Wikipedia articles based on whether subjects meet the requirements of the GNG that they have "significant coverage" in reliable sources. We do get that you're a hardcore fan of this photographer's works, but that doesn't translate to him being notable. Ravenswing 02:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BASIC - Presumed notable if published in secondary sources:
    • Josselyn is covered in the Biographies of Carmel and Berkeley Artists in in Jennie V. Cannon's The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies."[4]
    • The Monterey History Art Association's collection, curated by Jo Mora, encompasses Josselyn's photographs spanning from the mid-1920s to the mid-1940s. During these two decades, Josselyn, a close family friend, documented the Moras, resulting in a substantial portion of Mora's artwork being preserved through his lens. Photographs within the collection feature Mora's Pebble Beach studio, the commemorative half-dollar created to mark the 75th anniversary of California statehood, and scenes from the Abalone League Theater.[5]
    • He was the official photographer for the Forest Theater, a historic amphitheater in Carmel.[6]: p26 [7]
    • He is listed as a America's Distinguished Artists, a national registry of historic artists.[8]
    Greg Henderson (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That "America's Distinguished Artists" website just contains a link to the same Jennie V. Cannon local directory of Carmel artists that you have cited again and again to prove he meets BASIC. He does not, and that local directory is not the same as a National Dictionary of Biography. Anyone can send the ADA Website text or images to include. The fine print disclaimer found at the bottom of each "page" of the website does not provide a lot of confidence in the source: Links to sources of information outside of our web site are provided only as referrals for your further consideration. Please use due diligence in judging the quality of information contained in these and all other web sites. Information from linked sources may be inaccurate or out of date. TFAO neither recommends or endorses these referenced organizations. Although TFAO includes links to other web sites, it takes no responsibility for the content or information contained on those other sites, nor exerts any editorial or other control over them.. It's not a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 21:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The above link "Jennie V. Cannon: The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies" is used as a citation for about 106 Wikipedia articles. Looks like a WP:RS to me:
    The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies. Greg Henderson (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if this bio did meet WP:BASIC, the requirement for creative professionals, inclucing WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, specifies, Such a person is notable if:
    1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or
    2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or
    3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or
    4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
    No criterion above is met by this subject. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Meeting WP:BASIC means presumed notable.
    WP:PHOTOGRAPHER is easy!
    • Important figure  Done Josselyn is known as an important figure in the area of photography for California missions, buildings, people, and the official photographer for the Forest Theater. He is listed in a biography for Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies.[9][10][11]
    • Significant or well-known work or collective body of work  Done See Hathaway Photo Collection, and California Revealed.[12][13]
    • Permanent collection  Done Josselyn's work can be found in the collections of the San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park, the Monterey Peninsula Museum of Art, and the Hathaway Photo Collection.[14][15]
    Greg Henderson (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Greg, just because you say a guideline is fulfilled by saying it is "Done" does not make it so. As someone who has edited in the Visual arts area for a decade, I can comfortably say you are misinterpreting this SNG guideline by a long shot.
    •  Not done An important figure in photography is someone like Ansel Adams who has had hundreds of exhibitions in notable museums, is the subject of multiple monographs, hundreds of reviews, he invented the Zone System, he won a Presidential Award of Freedom. Sales of his original prints go for $600,000 at auction, whereas Josselyn's widow had to give away Josselyn's prints. His (Adam's) work is taught in universities around the world. Adams is a house-hold name, and his photographs of California are known around the world. THAT is what an important figure in photography is; Josselyn's career doesn't even come close to that at all. That he is listed in a regional directory of artists has no merit, it is NOT a Dictionary of National Biography.
    •  Not done Just because a photographer's work is mentioned in a book about Carmel, California does not make it a "significant or well known work or collective body of work." There is ZERO critical or art historical scholarship about his work; just because he had a job photographing a local theater in Carmel does not mean it's an important body of work. Edweard Muybridge created a significant well known body of work; Timothy O'Sullivan created a significant and well known body of work. Josselyn did not. Your saying "but he did, he did" does not make it so.
    •  Not done The Hathaway Photo Collection is a regional person's private collection, many of the photographs - in particular Josselyn's - were donated. It is NOT the same as a curated museum or national gallery collection. Nor is it important like the collection of the International Center of Photography, or the Museum of Modern Art's photo collection or the Center for Creative Photography collection. The only reason why the Hathaway collection appears in searches on WP is because of photo credits, not because the collection itself is notable. Josselyn's work isn't even in the collections of the San Francisco Museum of Art, nor the Legion of Honor in San Francisco, nor the DeYoung Museum all if which are only a few miles North of Carmel. Why do you think that is? His work is in 3 local collections: one is a park, the second is a local museum in the neighboring town where a person donated the print (according to the museum's object notes), it was not acquired through a normal curatorial process, and the third one is the Hathaway collection where his widow donated his work.
    Does he pass WP:PHOTOGRAPHER? No. Does he pass WP:BASIC? No. Does he pass WP:GNG? No. Netherzone (talk) 02:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given discussion and verifiable information, this subject meets WP:PHOTOGRAPHER.1, 4b, 4c, and 4d (for 4d, in addition to above, seems to be featured in permanent collection of Art, Design & Architecture Museum). It also looks possible that WP:BASIC will be met, but still, this is a good example of a case where GNG could fail our readers. —siroχo 00:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo, could you please add a link to where he seems to be featured in permanent collection of Art, Design & Architecture Museum? They have a searchable online collection and when I search the entire collection for his name I come up with "Your search yielded no results". When I do an advanced search of just their Photography collection, I come up with "zero totals" meaning he's not in it. Even if he were, the museum is a small university gallery in the town of Goleta, California. Netherzone (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what I found[14] —siroχo 04:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that a single photo does not meet any part of WP:PHOTOGRAPHER, criterion 4, which says, "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo, thank you for taking the time to look for that. Here is the thing....the record is in the AD&AM (not a notable collection) but if you scroll down, the source clearly says it's actually in the collection of the Santa Barbara Community Arts Association, definitely not a notable collection per WP criteria. Netherzone (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me help out:
    Greg Henderson (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Greg Henderson, I appreciate your efforts to help. In the list of sources above, howere, 4 out of 5 are photos available at local libraries, and the 13 "picturs of the Paul Flanders Mansion" appear in an application for the mantson's National Register of Historic Places Registration form. None of these sources qualify as either a significant monument, a substantial part of a significant exhibition, covered by significant critical attention, or in notable galleries or museums. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we are reaching consensus here. We have several keeps and several deletes. Although his name may not be as familiar as figures like Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, or Mathew Brady. Josselyn's notability is more regionally focused, with his work holding historical and artistic significance in the context of the Western United States. His legacy is more pronounced based on the historical importance of his images. His 3,800 images in the Lewis Josselyn collection at The Pat Hathaway Photo Collection, acquired in 2021 by the Monterey County Historical Library is significant. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't require unanimous agreement. AfD consensus won't be read by involved parties in discussion for a good reason. Graywalls (talk) 20:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Monterey County Weekly
  2. ^ Dialy Record
  3. ^ Robert W. Edwards (2012). "Jennie V. Cannon: The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies, vol. one, East Bay Heritage Project" (PDF). Oakland, California. Retrieved 2023-09-06.
  4. ^ Robert W. Edwards (2012). "Jennie V. Cannon: The Untold History of the Carmel and Berkeley Art Colonies, vol. one, East Bay Heritage Project" (PDF). Oakland, California. Retrieved 2023-09-06.
  5. ^ "Noticias del Puerto de Monterey" (PDF). Monterey History and Art Association. Monterey, California. 2003. Retrieved 2023-09-04.
  6. ^ Hale, Sharron Lee (1980). A tribute to yesterday: The history of Carmel, Carmel Valley, Big Sur, Point Lobos, Carmelite Monastery, and Los Burros. Santa Cruz, California: Valley Publishers. pp. 2, 26, 147. ISBN 9780913548738. Retrieved 2022-07-14.
  7. ^ California Views: The Pat Hathaway Photo Collection
  8. ^ America's Distinguished Artists
  9. ^ Carmel Pine Cone
  10. ^ Traditional Fine Arts Organization
  11. ^ A Tribute to Yesterday
  12. ^ Hathaway Photo Collection, California Revealed
  13. ^ California Revealed
  14. ^ Josselyn's selected works
  15. ^ Monterey County Historical Society gets Josselyn collection

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NYC Guru (talk) 01:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question was this NON-ADMIN relist above at 7 days and two hours appropriate? Guidelines say it's supposed to run for 168 hours and admins obviously can't get to it immediately, so I feel a non-admin jumping-in and relisting mere two hours past the required duration is unduly hastily non-admin action. Can't say I've encountered this before. Graywalls (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is not something I can say I've ever seen people other than admins doing. Pilaz (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd to me as well, esp. since it is a fairly new editor with a low edit count who has even closed deletion discussions that were "close calls", which is not really best practice for a non-admin. Netherzone (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the user who did this closure had taken it upon themselves to administer at least two AfDs prior to having been listed for the required 168 hour. If it is seen as an acceptable practice for non-admins to relist what they feel in their personal opinion as a close call and wants to buy more time, they'd stand aside and relist at 168 hours and one minute before there's a chance for an admin to render a reading. Graywalls (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind that beyond anything else, let's review. Greghenderson2006's filibustering aside, he's under a current indefinite TBAN from editing articlespace due to an inability to stay clear where there's a COI: something we've seen in spades here. (A look at his talk page also reveals that before the block, he had already had his autopatrolled right pulled, and there are multiple questions about him playing fast and loose with sourcing.) Any reasonable closer would discount his arguments at the least, and that leaves a strong consensus of eight editors advocating deletion against two advocating keeping. This is one of the more egregious "what the pluperfect hell?" relistings I've ever seen, and it should be promptly overturned. Ravenswing 02:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Łukasz Parobiec[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG, WP:NMMA or WP:NKICK. Nswix (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Poland. Nswix (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet notability criteria for MMA and or kickboxing. Lethweimaster (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I didn't find significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. All I found listings in databases and fight results. The Polish WP has a lot of sources, but they all just seem to be fight results. His highest MMA ranking ever was 141st according to fightmatrix.com and even with his win for a vacant ISKA title, neither he nor his opponent was ranked in the top 10 in kickboxing [15]. Papaursa (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is being an "ISKA world champion" not enough? pl:Łukasz Parobiec appears to have more footnotes (also I note Papaursa did not find them useful, and neither did I; the best one - from general Polish sporet portal, not MMA nichje sites is [16], from sport.pl, but it's just a fight result press blurb, twitter-lenght pretty much...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was a time when some kickboxing titles presumed WP notability, but that's now true only for Lumpinee or Rajadamnern champions. Otherwise a top 10 world ranking is needed. Papaursa (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjoy Paul[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. WP:REFBOMB. Kadı Message 22:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Munjariya[edit]

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

No Reliable sources, only PR stuff Worldiswide (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India, ABP News are just PR Stuff?! They are credible cite-worthy news sources, PR stuff or not, how can you deny the relevance of these publications which are supporting the work this person has done? Paperpopscissors (talk) 06:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sourcebot has all the sources used in the article as yellow, so iffy. It's a delete, based on the flowery language used in sources; this [19] is typical. Oaktree b (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trina Davis[edit]

Trina Davis (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 Joeykai (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Joeykai (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - significant coverage can be found, notably this, this, and more. Clearly a significant figure in Fiji football and women's football as a whole for being the first female professional from her country. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage presented above by Paul Vaurie is enough to meet GNG for me. Although some of the second source is an interview, there is also plenty of independent prose. This source also points to further coverage "Besides being a fan favorite at matches, she was featured in multiple Fijian publications, did a photoshoot for Fiji soccer sponsor Vodafone and modeled for local active wear company, Bolalicious." MarchOfTheGreyhounds 15:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 20:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Oceania and Washington. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zaara Vineet[edit]

Zaara Vineet (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)

COI-like article. See the promotional tone. The reason for deletion is that other than Doctor, she has no multiple notable roles. See Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A7.

She did not host Super Moms, her mom Archana Chandhoke did. See the full episode here. Standing next to your mother in the same color clothing without speaking is not hosting. Why not delete or redirect to Archana Chandhoke?

P. S. Almost all of the sources are just pictures of her. DareshMohan (talk) 08:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Redirect suggestion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is all in articles about her mother. I don't a redirect as suggested would be helpful, as she's barely mentioned in articles about the show. Not enough notability at this time, perhaps TOOSOON. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Dungeons & Dragons campaign settings. Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amethyst RPG[edit]

Amethyst RPG (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 Dungeons and Dragons campaign setting. PepperBeast (talk) 16:02, 26 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! 22:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per above. The award isn't enough and the GNG doesn't seem to be met, but there is still something here and a place to merge to, so... Hobit (talk) 16:41, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting ranges in the United States[edit]

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

I do not believe this article is notable per GNG. At point of creation, it was very much a guide. It developed into a directory of ranges (WP:NOTADIRECTORY). Since "Cleanup", it now largely continues to duplicate the content of Shooting range, or else provides advice on costs and etiquette (WP:NOTAGUIDE). Whilst mindful that Content does not determine Notability, I see no evidence that this topic is actually notable or distinct from the main article. What is distinct about Shooting Ranges in the United States compared with anywhere else? Since 2006, no one has found a US-specific angle to build the article around. I would propose MERGING, but I don't think there's anything in there worth adding to the Shooting range article. The article has had Multiple Issues flagged since 2014, and aside from the fact that nobody has fixed them, I'm honestly not sure it is possible to fix them - because the topic isn't notable. Consequently it has become a dusty corner full of unreferenced pearls of wisdom and anecdotal best practice. There are certainly notable ranges within the US (which deserve their own article, and can be grouped in "Category:Shooting Ranges in the United States"), but I do not believe that the general case of "Shooting Ranges in the United States is distinct or notable in its own right, or can be usefully written about in an encyclopaedic fashion. Hemmers (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Much of the deleted content can be reintegrated back into the article. You deleted much of the content that made it relevant to the US, then claimed it was no longer relevant. Its a relevant split as the entire shooting range article would be filled with US relevant info. Also the cost of shooting, renting firearms vs bringing your own, your own does make it relevant to the US and is a big factor, that isn't a guide thing. That's encyclopedic information.DarmaniLink (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    changed my mind on the costs section, that bit was unsalvageable. The rest of the article should however stand, as a split for the shooting range article. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I would gently disagree, although I'm glad to see we have consensus on the issues over "Cost of Shooting" which is a ludicrously unverifiable section when referring to the entire USA! If I see a dollar sign anywhere in the article, I'm probably going to delete it. It's inherently unrepresentative of the US as a whole, will age horribly with inflation and is probably incompatible with WP:NOTAGUIDE (and this is assuming it's referenced to begin with).
    But more broadly I don't see how sections such as:
    The largest problem currently with outdoor ranges is the lack of sufficient area behind and beside the impact berms. This area, usually called the Surface Danger Zone (SDZ), is a fan-shaped area that extends lengthwise to the ultimate ballistic distance of the round fired. Outdoor ranges often use baffles to contain fired rounds within the range, and, with proper design can reduce the surface danger zone area. Guidelines for surface danger zones vary widely.
    Have anything to do with Shooting in the United States. Baffles are common to ranges globally. Range design is constrained by physics and ballistics - these are not distinguishing features which make US Ranges special. And of course it's entirely uncited. Rinse and repeat for... most of the article.
    I would also note with reference to this edit message:
    "this isn't promo unless you think there's a US gun range conspiracy run by a $5B range chain in texas to mom and pops back alley shack where you shoot bottles".
    I don't think there is a conspiracy. I think the problem is that this article does not address a notable topic and is therefore looking for a gap to fill. Consequently, every mom-and-pop shop feels like they want to stick in their little bit of local wisdom. Which is why the content is of a very poor standard, and almost entirely unreferenced. Lines such as "to help one to easily learn use of any rental firearm in just a few minutes." read like a promotion (WP:ADVOCACY), even if they're not advertising a specific business or location. Such language is advocating for the concept of rental ranges generally and advertising their services. Which is not encyclopaedic. Hemmers (talk) 13:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The wording could definitely be improved as it seems verbatum from a gun range's pamphlet, but I wouldn't say its conceptually advocacy or promo. Lets continue this on the talk page so we don't clog this DarmaniLink (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:25, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To be clear, I really, really don't like this subject or this article. The Anglosphere's recent obsession/lovefest with firearms is a disease. That said, the article's main problem is lack of RS and that, at least, can be remedied. American English has an entire universe of RS about shooting ranges. Sources and a thorough rewrite leaves an encyclopaedic article that enhances Wikipedia. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 00:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou for your feedback! I agree about the obsession. But the presence of American English RS doesn’t justify a US-specific article though? Unless they cover something specific and unique to Shooting ranges in the United States. Things like range design are founded in ballistics and physics. Which are literally universal. I’m not seeing anything “us-specific” that justifies a US article. Any American English RS about shooting ranges is likely to apply equally to French or Indian ranges. Which is emphasised by the reaction to this AfD, which has been to try and shoehorn in generalised information about gun laws in California/US states (which doesn’t even relate directly to ranges). No one seems to be able to find a notable US-specific angle or explain what value this article could or should provide over and above the basic Shooting range article. Hemmers (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Anglosphere"? This is a USA phenomenon. Other anglophone countries -- Canada, UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa ... -- don't have the obsession with guns that Americans have. It's not so "recent", either. Anyway, delete: the article is of no interest to people outside the USA. Athel cb (talk) 09:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is so much factually wrong with that comment, but let's start with the idea that US-focused articles are somehow bad. There is no policy that I know of that discourages US-specific articles opposed to those specific to other counties. Articles about Shooting ranges in Norway and Switzerland are perfect encyclopaedic, so why can't this one be improved just as easily? On the idea that the article is of no interest to people outside the USA, we have around a hundred-thousand articles on CDPs, a concept of a "locale" so small that the subject doesn't even qualify as a village. With US gun madness on the global news about once a week, you think that people are more interested in Bartlett, Iowa than in US gun ranges? Now, as for the idea that gun obsession in the Anglosphere is a USA phenomenon, you might want to read the news outside the US and UK. Oh, Canada has the fourth highest rate of gun ownership on the planet. Australia would still be giving the US a run for its money if it hadn't been for Port Arthur. If we exclude Latin American countries, South Africa currently has the third highest gun-death rate in the world, and the leader is Eswatini (also part of the Anglosphere)article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:20, 19 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! 21:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. Didn't think I'd ever see an article about America and guns nominated for deletion in part because there's nothing special about the subject in this country. In addition to research about ranges in relation to the larger subject of simply guns in the US, there are articles about the culture of shooting ranges, biases in shooting ranges, etc. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:53, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See, this here is the hurdle that I'm struggling to get past. People are saying "ah well, it's adjacent to firearms in the US, and must therefore be notable because guns and america". But there's no evidence of that. Shooting culture and politics is already well covered - there's an article for "Gun laws in <state>" for basically every US state. Plus summary articles like Gun politics in the United States, Gun law in the United States or Gun laws in the United States by state. But a shooting range is a geographical place or amenity. Put aside the politics... what is unique about shooting ranges in the US? Nada (other than being quite a lot of them). There are indoor 25m ranges and 1000yard outdoor ranges. There are 10metre airgun ranges. These are similar to ranges you will find around the world. What is so distinct about a 10m ISSF-compliant airgun range in the US that makes it sufficiently different from one in Germany, the UK or China that those distinctions meet GNG? Or a 25m pistol range? It's like having an article "9mm ammunition in the United States".
    You raise an interesting point on broader culture... but... there's an article for that (Gun culture in the United States). Likewise anti-muslim biases in US shooting ranges is extremely notable... but is really just a very specific case of Racism in the United States and/or Islamophobia in the United States.
    Someone will probably come along and accuse me of bludgeoning the conversation in a bit. But for all the people saying it's "obviously GNG", nobody seems able to add good, quality encyclopaedic content that isn't a guide or a list of businesses! Hemmers (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The general consensus is "it's notable, but the current state of the article sucks." It's not that a lot of people are "not able", its "not want". Not everyone spends 40 hours a week editing wikipedia and frankly, i'm not passionate enough about guns, nor do i have the time anymore, to overhaul the article. Either way, the linked sources are about american shooting ranges. DarmaniLink (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have a source analysis covering the subject of shooting ranges in the USA please as this is otherwise a discussion devoid of strong policy based argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've created a source table that Spartaz suggested. It is based on the current sourcing of the article. There isn't much to grasp here, though I'm sure there are more reliable sources our there. Conyo14 (talk) 22:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://damagefactory.com/yes-foreign-nationals-may-rent-and-shoot-guns/ No Primary source of a shooting range ? no consistent reliable sources say much about this particular location, but it does give an official gov't source No Merely mentions laws regarding rights of foreign nationals ✘ No
http://nrahuntersrights.org/PlacestoShoot.aspx ? No unsecured and unregistered site No Domain page ✘ No
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=30515.&lawCode=PEN Yes Yes No WP:ROUTINE ✘ No
https://blogs.cdc.gov/niosh-science-blog/2009/05/18/firingrange/ No WP:BLOG No 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}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful for those editors arguing for a Keep to review the source table analysis and respond to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the source table. I won't wade into the gun debate. The USA literally has thousands of shooting ranges, and what's given seems to be no different than shooting ranges elsewhere. You bet your Colt 45 ranges here in Canada are 99% similar to what's described here. Other than being in the USA, I see no reason to have an article about American gun ranges; other than the sheer number of them, I can't see a difference between a range in Canada, Mexico, or the US (to limit ourselves to North America for the source of example). Safety concerns, yes. Most are part of a gun club. So you take out the American bits in the article, and this is just an article about shooting ranges. Oaktree b (talk) 03:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Response to table as requested:The topic itself falls under general notability but the article, in its current state, sucks and needs improvement. That has been my stance the whole time. There's already precedent in Shooting ranges in Switzerland Shooting ranges in Norway to have a nation specific shooting range article.
Currently horrible sourcing and a poorly written article going back to like 2006 doesnt mean the topic itself isn't notable. Rhododendrites posted two links about american specific shooting ranges. here and here.
There's a ton of news articles and papers on american specific shooting ranges, or which contain a heavy focus on them. This needs to be updated by someone with the time to overhaul it. I do not fall under this catagory, otherwise I would.
Notable topic, bad article. DarmaniLink (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made another source table to analyze Rhododentrite's sources. Kinda wish someone could provide an example of an academic source, then I could !vote. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
Rhododentrites additional sources analysis by Conyo14 (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC) :[reply]
They talk about gun ranges, yes, but don't differentiate them from any other gun ranges around the world, I think that's the issue. The article wants to talk about it, but only mentions basic facts that apply to any gun range, anywhere. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that. The NPR article is literally talking about gun ranges in America. The NY Times article is talking about Muslim bias about guns, in the US. Conyo14 (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the NPR piece is is about US ranges, and the NYT is as well. The question from a notability standard, though, is whether either of them makes US shooting ranges somehow uniquely notable as opposed to shooting ranges everywhere else. The NYT piece is more about the treatment of Muslims in the US, using shooting ranges as the frame. It's not an invalid point, but it is certainly the weaker of the arguments here. The NPR piece is harder to dismiss. Like DarmaniLink, I still feel that the problem here is the sourcing, not the subject. I have to admit, though, that Oaktree b and Hemmers's points are making it a much more difficult decision. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that. I cannot decide whether this article should be kept or deleted. I'm more for a no consensus on this. Conyo14 (talk) 23:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.npr.org/2013/01/31/170391799/are-shooting-ranges-the-new-bowling-alleys Yes NPR Yes NPR Yes Literally about gun ranges ✔ Yes
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/06/07/us/muslim-gun-owners-america.html Yes A couple of interviews, but don't speak for the majority of owners Yes NY Times ~ Mostly routine mentions about gun stores and Muslim bias, not much on the ranges themselves, but still partial. ~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rita De Crescenzo[edit]

Rita De Crescenzo (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)

Although I am the creator of the page, months later I realize that the article most likely has low encyclopedic relevance. The person in question has released various songs but only through YouTube, there is nothing on the most popular streaming platforms. They’re also songs released digitally only, and independently, without a record label. Finally, the person in question is actually a TikToker, whose relevance usually goes only to the most prominent characters. Yeagvr (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:52, 26 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! 22:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Thanks to the nominator/creator for being honest. It appears that Ms. De Crescenzo attempted to start a new career as an influencer and social media singer at age 40, and good luck to her but she has not yet been noticed by the reliable entertainment media. The sources covering her (in Italian) are clearly self-promotional vanity sites or gossip rags that comment un-informatively on passing social media trends. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 02:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Donohue[edit]

Denis Donohue (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 standup comic. PepperBeast (talk) 19:51, 26 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! 22:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found for this person; all are hits on a Raytheon executive. Appearing on the Howard Stern show and the like are name drops. He appears to be active since the late 90s, yet has no critical attention. Appears to be just a working comedian. Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Lighthouse (band). Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larry E. Smith[edit]

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

WP:BLP (suspect but cannot definitively prove WP:AUTOBIO) of a musician, not reliably sourced as passing notability criteria for musicians. The notability claim here is of the "musician notable as member of band" variety, which is not automatic grounds for a standalone biographical article as a separate topic from the band -- he would have to be shown to pass WP:GNG as an individual for some reason besides the band (e.g. going on to a solo career), which this article is failing to demonstrate: it's referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and cites absolutely no GNG building media coverage about him whatsoever.
It also warrants note that this existed as a redirect to the band until yesterday, when it got converted into this -- I would ordinarily just redirect him back to the band and walk away, but I already did that once and then it got revert-warred back to this a few minutes later, so unfortunately escalation is necessary.
The article just isn't saying anything "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of much, much better sourcing than just the band's own self-published website and discogs.com directory listings. Bearcat (talk) 20:18, 26 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! 22:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement[edit]

Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement (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 request by User:175.107.224.105: No proof of notability of this article, let alone sustained coverage. Had only unreliable references which do not even mention the subject, which were cleaned up by me UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pakistan. UtherSRG (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any material which can be salvaged such as the sole ref to History of Gilgit-Baltistan#Self-governing status and present-day Gilgit Baltistan. - Indefensible (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed my earlier vote per what Jahaza wrote below. - Indefensible (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure what's going on here, but the IP user removed material that was not, in fact, unreliable, merely no longer available via web or which per WP:RS Noticeboard had "additional considerations apply" while claiming that the source had been "blacklisted," which it hadn't.[20]. There are other sources that are not included in the article:[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Some of these are passing mentions, but I think it's enough to confirm that this group really does exist. Jahaza (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sources need to be dug up from Archive, for instance, the initiator thought that the first source no longer existed/or was too old, I found it in Archive.org and fixed it. Jahaza (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jahaza My apologies for removal of those refs, I was not aware of the concept of link rot and thought refs can be removed as I could not see relevant content. (Though the ANI source I removed is still "deprecated" if not "blacklisted" per the link you showed me, which is what I meant actually). Modifying my argument above per new info that the article lacks sustained coverage as evidence by the sources which are all either unreliable, passing mentions or decades old hence fails the GNG policy. It is better off merged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.224.105 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing, the opinion piece sources you've restored as relevant because it was written by the party chairman would probably be useful if an article existed on the chairman, I removed it here to declutter the article as the political entity (GBUM) was not even mentioned in it. Just noting it here for the afd reviewers.175.107.224.105 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're really familiar enough with our policies or with Wikipedia editing to make these judgments. You've stated that it was a hoax[29], or that the sources were too old (but see WP:NTEMP), or that sources didn't contain mention of the topic (some of which just had to be recovered via Archive.org), or that there is no sustained coverage (which in practice contradicts your statement that the sources are too old). Jahaza (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But I had already modified my comment about the "hoax" part, that is an old revision. Not sure why you're looking too much into it, but understand why I might have left a "confused" impression on my part by not clearing things up properly by including diffs. Here's a diff I was refering to, the content of which I removed (now reverted) because it didnot even mention the political entity [30]. The "too old sources" argument is just ONE argument for lack of evidence of sustained coverage, because the only reliable (independent) sources that exist are passing mentions of the party, unreliable partisan sources/opinion pieces cannot be used to establish notability as stated under the notability guidelines. Especially not ANI. 175.107.224.105 (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A detailed analysis by me for all the sources used in the article and given above by Jahaza. The ones listed in the vote above are all passing mention sources, and cannot be used to establish notability.

1). Ref 3 [31], Ref 4 [32], & Ref 5 (an open access journal) [33] passing mention sources, not enough to establish notability as a standalone article. 2). Ref 7 [34], Ref 8 [35] & Ref 9 [36]. Again, another series of passing mention low quality Indian news sources, all of which are ridden with heavily partisan language. 3) Ref 1 [37] This is the only source you've listed which is focused on the party, but again dubious looking partisan source/propaganda outlet for the Indian government , it is not usable as a WP:RS as it not independent.

An analysis for the sources listed in the article.

4). Jahaza states that ANI as a source is usable since "additional considerations apply" "[38]. But here it explicitly mentions that "the news agency's coverage of events and people related to Indian domestic and FOREIGN politics, in particular, is WP:QUESTIONABLE" i.e. its use as a "reliable" source doesn't apply to this article. 5) Passing mention news sources used to bloat the article which do not even mention GBUM, but just discusses some other "4th political party" which existed. [39] and this source [40] which also doesn't mention GBUM. 6). [41] a letter written by the party itself to the Pakistani prime minister. Primary source. 7) Lastly, this book [42] is also passing mention.

As the notability guidelines state, atleast a couple independent sources with evidence of significant coverage are required to pass WP:GNG, which this article does not have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.224.105 (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you previously edited in this topic area under a different account? Jahaza (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An oddly inappropriate thing to ask out of nowhere in the middle of an afd. Is there something wrong with my edits/the arguments I have presented or not having a registered account? You can leave a message on my talk page. 175.107.224.105 (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is an inappropriate question at all. Being able to review an editor's contribution as part of an AfD conversation isn't unreasonable, and you appear to have excellent info. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, but off topic for an afd. My IP address contributions disappear after a few weeks/months, which is completely out of my control just to let you two know. 175.107.224.105 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (with a bias toward Keep). This would make an excellent section in Gilgit-Baltistan, possibly called something like "Independence Movement" that could also include other like-minded parties if such exist. If that is not seen as viable by all editors, I lean toward a !vote of Keep. It teeters on the edge of GNG as a largely regional group, but there are five sources ranging from 2003 to 2012 which meets SIGCOV and SUSTAIN within that narrow context. Cheers Last1in (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    History of Gilgit-Baltistan#Self-governing status and present-day Gilgit Baltistan See here regarding the politics of that region. This autonomist political party is already mentioned. Inline with the what all the relevant sources say if you go through them, the rest being bloat material. 175.107.224.105 (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient coverage from reliable sources. Non notable movement. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nooruddin2020 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 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! 20:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The cited sources either don't mention the subject or are from Indian sites which are not neutral on the issue. Even if such movement exists, it is not notable yet. Insight 3 (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannis Nakitsas[edit]

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

Does not seem WP:NOTABLE to me. No English-language results in Google Scholar [43] [44] or Google Books [45] [46]. One single Google Scholar result using both Greek spellings [47] [48] and it's just a mention of him without discussion, while both Greek spellings give no Google Books results [49] [50].

This individual is mostly mentioned in Greek-language non-academic websites regarding the Macedonian Struggle. I'm familiarized with this topic. It was a violent confrontation between several ethnic groups to achieve supremacy within the weakened Ottoman Empire. It's common in the historical narrative of the peoples that participated on it to commemorate lots of names of fallen fighters, but few of them are notable. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 15:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is part of a larger series of articles about people who participated in the Macedonian Struggle and it was, like usual, part of the Greek and Bulgarian Wikipedias before an English version was written. It's expected for the sources to be in Balkan languages because this is an area in which Balkan language-speakers are interested. There is no requirement for every article on Wikipedia to have significant English language coverage, just to be covered by secondary sources in any language, and from my experience many articles on the platform are in a similar situation to this one regarding English-language coverage.
The specific individual is mentioned in pretty much all the usual publications related to the Macedonian Stuggle, as can seen from the articles references, you needn't have looked for references online from scratch. The Society for Macedonian Studies for example is a fairly academic institution that cooperates with the University of Thessaloniki. --Antondimak (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of problematic articles of this topic area in Bulgarian Wikipedia. Generally they're written by the same person and cite the same general sources. They have WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH problems such as assigning ethnicites to individuals without any source. In Bulgarian Wikipedia Nakitsas is said to be not a Greek but an Aromanian. Also, there's over 700 articles of Greeks during the Macedonian Struggle in Bulgarian Wikipedia [51]. I don't think we even have 100 articles here for Greek soldiers in a more famous and researched conflict like for example World War II. It should ring some bells.
I did not imply English-language coverage of an individual is necessary for notability, I just wanted to note Nakitsas is not discussed at all in English-language academia.
I also want to note the quality of the sources. Reference 4 is a blog and reference 1 does not mention Nakitsas. Reference 2 and 3 do not have links so verification becomes harder and they anyway cite one single sentence, which just says where he was born and that he was a guerrilla fighter in the Balkans, pretty common and unspecial for biographies of this topic area. Collaboration with Georgios Tsontos, seemingly a perfectly notable individual, could increase Nakitsas' notability but it can definitively not be the single thing carrying the article. I should also note that reference 3 seems like a repositery or encyclopedia of a kind. It probably does not discuss Nakitsas in depth. Passing mentions in usual general sources regarding a topic is not enough. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect unless reliable sources that give him significant coverage are found. The last citation is a blog, the first is a ~200 page document that doesn't contain his name, and the third is a self-described "Yearbook of Fighters of the Macedonian Struggle"—a database, whether that's physical or virtual. The second may be useful, but one source does not confer notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To what target article could this page title be Redirected to?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be redirected. The only potential target would be Macedonian Struggle and I find a redirect of an individual into the article of a conflict as improper. Plus Nakitsas is not discussed there so the redirect would have justification for deletion anyway. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Two "keep" arguments are entirely in regards to things other than this, and so are not relevant to whether or not this article should be retained. The remaining valid "keep" argument was even stated by its writer as "weak", so the consensus here is that this is not a reasonably maintainable subject given its inherent subjectivity. There were suggestions of an article on the topic, rather than a list, and this seemed to attract some substantial interest, so that may be something to consider. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of people and organisations frequently parodied by Private Eye[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of people and organisations frequently parodied by Private Eye (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 fancruft trivia list. There’s probably something notable here but “list of frequent targets of parody ain’t it. What’s next? List of frequent targets of parody by Mad magazine? By SNL? The Onion? Homestar Runner? Dronebogus (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Saturday Night Live? Have you seen that? Stuff like whole categories of Saturday Night Live catchphrases‎. This is just another WP:NOTAMERICAN nomination, you seem to have done a bunch of those today. 2A00:23C5:E99B:C101:21F5:E0FA:3F3C:F743 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per concurrent discussions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#XfD ban proposal, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recurring jokes in Private Eye. Deletion is almost certainly off the table for this specific AfD, given recent history here. —siroχo 08:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – not sure why this has attracted less interest than the three related AfDs, but none of the sources in the article discuss these people and organisations as a group, nor is the group at all well-defined, nor is the article well-sourced. For Prime Minister parodies (Private Eye) and Recurring jokes in Private Eye it's been possible to look for sources, but for this one I'm not sure what I'd even search for. Nothing salvageable here as far as I can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arms & Hearts (talk • contribs) 18:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have no opinion of this publication, and have not examined the other concurrent AfDs; but this one is suffering from a lack of participation, so I thought I'd investigate this one. There is extensive literature on the topic of parody in Private Eye; as such an article about Parody in Private Eye is probably viable. However, this list has impossible inclusion criteria. I don't see any sources making such a list; so then who determines "frequently"? Indeed who determines what figures were parodied at all? The obvious ones are obvious, but I have no doubt that there are innumerable parodies picked up on by the audience that no secondary source has ever commented on. Siroxo, I'm a little surprised at your !vote here; deletion is indeed off the table at some of the other AfDs, but there's no basis in policy to treat all related Private Eye AfDs the same, given that the articles have entirely different scopes. The IP vote above should be disregarded entirely, as it has nothing to say about the need and viability of the article under discussion. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's more about the context surrounding the discussions. I agree that the inclusion criteria on this one are both too broad and too specific at the same time, and your suggestion of Parody in Private Eye is a very good one which I support. However, I generally am not comfortable moving forward with deletion on AFDs where I view the risk of violating pillar 3 or 4 in the nomination as higher than the risk of violating pillar 1 or 2.
    As an editor who had taken long breaks, I'm honestly really happy with the consensus that developed around AFDs over the past several years. Even if good faith, I don't think this nomination was made in the spirit of existing AFD consensus, and I think the discussions surrounding it have uncovered that. —siroχo 17:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo: I don't necessarily disagree that this group of AfDs, and quite a few nominations in general, are come too soon; in that they don't begin with the question of "what should we do with this content?" which is really a talk page discussion that needs to account for the broader topic, and instead jump to "is the article as framed notable?" However, I really don't like it when broader AfD conduct issues slip into specific discussions, because it makes those discussions nearly worthless (in my opinion) without at all resolving the broader issue, because this isn't a forum that can do that. The patterns visible in the endless sports bio AfDs are a perfect example, though these have gotten better since NSPORTS was changed. All of which is to say; I feel strongly each article at AfD should be treated on its merits, regardless of the approach taken by the nominator, and I don't think we're doing that here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally agree with what you're saying, but I think my take on it is a little different. In my personal view, AfD norms reflect the 5 pillars pretty well. I know the pillars are intentionally not rigid, but I'll try to summarize my thoughts here. The substance of discussions do tend to focus primarily on pillar 1 (generally N or NOT) with a big chunk of pillar 2 (V, NPOV are big ones) and occasional pillar 5/IAR. So, in my view, nominations do need a special focus on pillars 3 and 4 (BEFORE, ATD) -- and yes, the occasional IAR nomination is ok. We know that despite our best intentions, we often increase the heat when articles are rightly deleted, and respecting both pillars 3 and especially 4 is the path toward improving that situation. So, that's why I sit where I do on this current AfD.
    To your note regarding sports bios, honestly, I really appreciate the way the folks who regularly nominate articles that don't meet NSPORTS handle it. It's very respectful of pillars 3 and 4, allowing for the discussion to easily focus on pillars 1 and 2. I'd say they have a correctly high deletion rate due to that. —siroχo 17:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree about the applicability to specific AfDs, but can respect that position, thank you for clarifying. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 19:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems rather trivial, but I'm not sure. Sources are ok, but they talk minimally about this. There aren't extensive sources. Oaktree b (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and tag for cleanup. The lack of sourcing for many of the entries is concerning. Ideally it should be possible to find multiple independent reliable sources for any item that actually belongs on this list. I don't really see a clear conceptual distinction between this and Recurring jokes in Private Eye ("list of targets of recurring jokes" doesn't seem usefully distinct from "list of recurring jokes"), so I am inclined to think that the same arguments regarding NLIST would apply here. And in general, the topic of "Private Eye making fun of people in a frequently recurring and in-jokey sort of way" is sufficiently well-attested that I don't think that NLIST has a lot of teeth. By the same token, it seems to me that merging these two lists might lead to better coverage overall. But executing that merge would require considerable work and familiarity with the topic (which I lack), so for the time being I'd be inclined to tag it and move on. -- Visviva (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 04:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Kalanzi Kachapizo[edit]

Leila Kalanzi Kachapizo (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 meeting NACTOR, poor sources and no notability. Mozzcircuit (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Karnataka talk 21:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero hits in Gnews, literally nothing. Sources used in the article aren't reliable or barely so per sourcebot. I can't find mention of this person. I swear we've seen an article about a hairstylist actress recently in AfD, if not his very person... Oaktree b (talk) 03:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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! 22:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

X Country[edit]

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

Not enough secondary coverage for this defunct satellite radio channel to warrant a standalone article. No opposition for a redirect to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. Let'srun (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulam Jilani Manzari[edit]

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

I don't see significant coverage in independent sources. Also, some of the articles don't even seem to mention him. Kk.urban (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew K. Golden[edit]

Andrew K. Golden (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. None of the sources provide independent significant coverage on subject. Article creator seems to be WP:SPA to advertise Yale Alumni. Imcdc Contact 09:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Daniel[edit]

David S. Daniel (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. References are press releases, non-independent interviews and info from alumni school. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Article creator seems to be WP:SPA to advertise Yale Alumni. Imcdc Contact 09:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MV Kaie[edit]

MV Kaie (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 am unable to find any coverage of this ship in secondary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet vote struck by — Trey Maturin™ 14:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No news or book results for MV Kaie or Vessel Kaie, Other than the usual "Details and current position" results I'm not able to find anything on this ship, No evidence of any notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010Talk 20:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 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 14:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BuzzSaw[edit]

BuzzSaw (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 lack of secondary coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV for this defunct satellite radio and television channel. Someone capitalized incorrectly on the title of the subject (s should be lowercase), so I oppose a redirect. Let'srun (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3-Demon[edit]

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

Lack of notability - sole sources on article is a MobyGames listing, a playable version of the game itself on Archive.org, and a mention of the game in an ad for shareware, nothing demonstrating notability. I was unable to find any reliable sources discussing the game on Archive.org (largely getting results for an Amiga 3D model program of the same name) or Google. Article was previously deleted by PROD. Waxworker (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Hewlett Packard Enterprise. Liz Read! Talk! 07:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IceWall SSO[edit]

IceWall SSO (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:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:02, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage[edit]

The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage (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 has been repeatedly reverted to an unsourced plot-only article. Unable to find sources for this to meet WP:GNG. Redirect to Five Find-Outers is my recommendation. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We have to improve the article by Adding citations and sources. If we don't find any citations or sources we can't just delete or redirect any article. We need to improve it. There are some other articles which don't have sources and citations but it has not been redirected or deleted. We can't just delete or redirect anything if citations are not available or added. DitorWiki (talk) 04:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. I can’t find any in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Editors can’t just create articles in the hope that someone else will find some sources eventually. Mccapra (talk) 05:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (or draftify) per nomination. The series article Five Find-Outers, and all of the articles for the books in that series, are in a poor state. None are properly sourced, with a Blyton Society link if you're lucky. In fact, most of the articles linked from Enid Blyton bibliography are unsourced, and would struggle to pass WP:NBOOK.
Blyton was the R. L. Stine of the early 20th. She churned out 762 books over 48 years (about 16 a year average), many of which were wildly popular then and still sell today. So the series are probably notable enough for their own articles, but it's tough to make a case under WP:NBOOK or even WP:GNG for all 762. I'd suggest a redirect of all of the Five Find-Outers articles, and an improvement of the series article. Wikishovel (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Sheridan, Greg (2023-04-05). "Damn the politically correct censors of great art and literature". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2023-04-06. Retrieved 2023-08-20.

      The article notes: "A distinctive joy of literature is unexpectedly finding yourself in a character, or an outlook, an idea or person you instinctively identify with. For me, this happened first when I read The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage, when I was about eight or nine. The group’s leader is Frederick Algernon Trotterville. His initials form the word FAT. ... Even as a child, my natural shape resembled a potato. The idea that a smart-talking fatty could be a hero was terrifically appealing, perhaps the basis of the rest of my life. ... Body-shaming, hate speech, stereotyping – every offence a children’s book could commit. And yet it’s also marvellously plotted and absorbing to read even today."

    2. Houghton, Robert. "The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage". Enid Blyton Society. Archived from the original on 2023-08-20. Retrieved 2023-08-20.

      The article notes: "The twelfth book, The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage is another fine tale, involving a stolen painting and its whereabouts. Goon's nephew Ern once again comes to visit, supposedly to help his Uncle, but inevitably he sides again with the Five. This time, he has a bigger role to play, and actually has four whole chapters almost to himself in the middle of the book, when he is given the job of shadowing the suspects."

    3. A. P. L. (1954-08-25). "Two Adventure Stories for Children". Shipley Times and Express. Retrieved 2023-08-20 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: "Miss Enid Blyton is indeed a remarkable personality. The volume and variety of her production of children's books is almost incredible. The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage is the twelfth in her mystery series dealing with the further adventures of "the five find-outers" and their dog, and centring round a cottage town by the river. Besides mystery there is a strong and continuous element of fun in the story contributed largely by the steadily plodding Ern and the irrepressible Fatty. A healthy and enjoyable story."

    4. ""The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage"". Morpeth Herald. 1954-08-13. Retrieved 2023-08-20 – via British Newspaper Archive.

      The article notes: ""The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage by Enid Blyton (Methuen, 7/6) is a grand yarn which centres around a cottage down by the river. Two runaways, a stolen picture, a little white poodle, and the Five Fond-Outers and Dog on the job; these are the ingredients of this splendid yarn. In addition to a first-class mystery, there is also plenty of fun and hilarity."

    5. Ginley, Joanne (2010-09-04). "Video: Enid Blyton treasures go under the hammer". The Yorkshire Post. Archived from the original on 2023-08-20. Retrieved 2023-08-20.

      The article notes: "The auction also features the original typescript of Blyton's The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage, complete with the author's handwritten note, which is expected to fetch 300 to 500."

    6. Greaves, Amanda (2010-09-02). "Best-selling author's original typescripts set for auction at Ilkley". Telegraph & Argus. Archived from the original on 2023-08-20. Retrieved 2023-08-20.

      The article notes: "The original typescript of Enid Blyton’s book The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage, expected to fetch £300 to £500, includes a handwritten note from the author, explaining that she did not write her books by hand, but liked to type them “straight out of my head”."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I expanded and added sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the improvements made by Wikieditor Cunard. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well done to Cunard for unearthing all of those and adding them in. However they are little more than passing mentions and certainly not in-depth reviews, or significant coverage, so I’m not changing my !vote. Mccapra (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here is another review I found about the subject:
    1. Granform, Henry (1965). "Blyton, Enid, Metsästysmajan salaisuus. Alkuteos: The mystery of tally-ho cottage" [Blyton, Enid, The Secret of the Hunting Lodge. Original work: The Mystery of tally-ho cottage.]. Kirjastolehti [fi] (in Finnish). Vol. 58. p. 104. Retrieved 2023-08-23 – via Google Books.

      Kirjastolehti  [fi] is a professional magazine for public libraries published by the Finnish Library Association. The review notes that The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage was translated into Finnish by Sisko Pylkkänen. The translated book was published in 1965 and was given the Finnish-language title Metsästysmajan salaisuus. The review notes: "Tavanmukaista patenttijännitystä aitoon blytonilaiseen tyyliin. Peruukkeja ja valepukuja on tällä kertaa muillakin kuin nuorten etsivien erinomaisen älykkäällä johtajalla tuskinpa muuta uutta tutunnäköisten kansien sisällä."

      From Google Translate: "Usual patent tension in true Blytonian style. This time, there are wigs and disguises for other than the extremely intelligent leader of the young detectives, but there is hardly anything new inside the familiar covers."

    Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". The book received significant coverage in Enid Blyton Society (377 words) and The Australian (103 words). These sources "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content". There is additional coverage in book reviews in Shipley Times and Express (63 words), the Morpeth Herald (64 words), and the Finnish Library Association's magazine Kirjastolehti  [fi] (53 words).

    The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage was published in 1954. Many newspapers and magazines from that time period are not available online. That this book was able to garner this much critical coverage that could be found online despite being published 69 years ago strong contributes to notability:

    1. "Body-shaming, hate speech, stereotyping – every offence a children’s book could commit. And yet it’s also marvellously plotted and absorbing to read even today." (The Australian, 2023)
    2. "Besides mystery there is a strong and continuous element of fun in the story contributed largely by the steadily plodding Ern and the irrepressible Fatty. A healthy and enjoyable story." (Shipley Times and Express, 1954)
    3. "... these are the ingredients of this splendid yarn. In addition to a first-class mystery, there is also plenty of fun and hilarity." (Morpeth Herald, 1954)
    4. "Usual patent tension in true Blytonian style. This time, there are wigs and disguises for other than the extremely intelligent leader of the young detectives, but there is hardly anything new inside the familiar covers." (Finnish Library Association's Kirjastolehti  [fi], 1965)
    5. "The twelfth book, The Mystery of Tally-Ho Cottage is another fine tale, involving a stolen painting and its whereabouts." (Enid Blyton Society)
    Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria also notes:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study.
    It is very clear from this Google Scholar search for Enid Blyton that "the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work [has been] a common subject of academic study" for many decades. The Wikipedia article for Enid Blyton says:

    Enid Mary Blyton (11 August 1897 – 28 November 1968) was an English children's writer, whose books have been worldwide bestsellers since the 1930s, selling more than 600 million copies. Her books are still enormously popular and have been translated into ninety languages. ... She is the world's fourth most-translated author, behind Agatha Christie, Jules Verne and William Shakespeare with her books being translated into 90 languages.

    Among numerous other reasons, Blyton, the book's author, "is of exceptional significance" because she is the world's fourth-most translated author behind Agatha Christie, Jules Verne and William Shakespeare.

    Cunard (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:27, 26 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! 05:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:HEY[53]. I will also point out that books can meet WP:GNG and Cunard's sources demonstrate that as well. —siroχo 06:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Kudos to Cunard for providing the citations that clearly establish the book's notability.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Last Night on Earth: Live in Tokyo[edit]

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

This page literally only has one live source, and it's the band's own website. The only other link goes to a 404 error and is just a distribution site, which likely would not provide any sort of notability even if it was still reachable or at least archived. Seems like it should obviously be deleted, or perhaps at the very least redirected to Green Day discography. JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:47, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 26 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! 05:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Nicaragua women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doriana Aguilar[edit]

Doriana Aguilar (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 Nicaragua women's international footballers. The subject has earned at least seven caps for the Nicaragua women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ismelis del Toro[edit]

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

The subject has earned at least four caps for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Srikanth Kandragula[edit]

Srikanth Kandragula (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)

Has no notability, sources are not about him, failed AfC. DareshMohan (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Pinnell[edit]

Owen Pinnell (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:NOLY and WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 03:21, 26 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! 03:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following expansion. Paora (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following recent expansion, this article now contains extensive coverage of the subject, supported by a substantial number of citations from good sources. Meets WP:GNG. Marshelec (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

F650 Supertruck[edit]

F650 Supertruck (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)

Advertisement page for a vehicle customisation firm. No evidence of notability. All the sources cited are random YouTube videos (two of which are from the firm's own corporate YouTube channel), with the exception of one webpage "alarm ministries", which on inspection is just a gibberish SEO spamsite stuffed with keywords but with no actual content Little Professor (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, and Georgia (U.S. state). Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete PROMO for the company. Only sources I find are mentions of a truck getting involved in an accident [54], [55], that was branded for a video game event. Oaktree b (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article mentions several publications that have written about the company's vehicles: "In 2006 the company's trucks were featured on automotive magazines like Rides magazine, Poker Runs America, Xtreme Boats, Dupont Registry, Exotic Car Buyers Guide." I added this reference: Colby, Eric (2018-11-25). "Living Life to the Fullest". Poker Runs America. Retrieved 2023-08-18. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:33, 26 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! 01:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Colby, Eric [56] No Heavily dependent on founder interview and other related people ? ~ doesn't meet CORPDEPTH ✘ No
Doug DeMuro video ? No marketing channel for car auction website ? ✘ No
Harry Walsh[57] ? No "welcome to my blog"[58] No Nonsense Quickly after briefing the introduction, the efficiency of the automotive and the engine capability must be reviewed as these are probably the most targeted parts through which the reader is . Also, to retain and to enhance the reading of the reader to the weblog, the principle options must be narrated first. ✘ No
Extreme supertruck videos (2) No seems to be (updated per below)
definitely by the company 		No UGC at best No ✘ 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}}.
  • To add to the above table, the Extreme Supertruck videos are definitely from the company themselves. The URL linked to in the Extreme Supertruck youtube channel (extremesupertruck.com) just redirects to the company's website (f650pickups.com) Little Professor (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is promotional and it fails WP:CORP. A Google search for "F650 Supertruck" shows nothing significant. FlutterDash344 (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is a clear consensus to delete here. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mizzy[edit]

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

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

Keep. (as article creator). Page does seem to be a magnet for both WP:IDONTLIKE and COI edits, but neither are a reason to delete (hints of WP:ATD). The significant coverage in reliable sources is clear and the subject passes WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE search would indicate significant coverage in BBC News as recently as yesterday, so I disagree there is a "flurry" of coverage, coverage is very much ongoing. I watch the article carefully and have removed any tabloid stuff (there is plenty). Notability is establised by non tabloid press such as BBC News, The Guardian, The Telegraph, The Spectator and more, that high quality sourcing is already in the article.
Considering WP:NOTNEWS, which is policy and has four reasons to delete. 1 - original reporting. Nope, this is all sourced. 2 Routine coverage, also nope, the subject making headlines, the coverage is not routine, as per our definition. 3 - Who's Who which excludes people for one event and such like, this guy is notable for lots of events, 4 - Gossip and diary stuff, there is high quality reporting and analysis about the subject. Any careful reading of the policy would not support deletion.
WP:BLP1E is absolutely not met. All three criteria would need to be met, and I doubt any are. Aside from the fact that the subject is notable for multiple (similar, but that doesn't matter) events, he is absolutely not a low profile individual, thus failing criterion 2 of WP:BLP1E. (See WP:NOTBLP1E for more)
None of this matters less than the key thing: WP:GNG - which is met. Thinking of WP:THREE here's three sources that should make that utterly clear:
  1. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/06/disturbing-rise-mizzy-tiktok-culture
  2. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-65700125
  3. https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/talktv-andre-walker-mizzy-b2351193.html
Of course, none of these paint the guy in a good light, but that's besides the point. He is exceptionally notable. With BBC coverage as recent as yesterday, we should not WP:RUSHDELETE CT55555(talk) 18:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is largely a negative portrayal of him, for doing "things" and getting in trouble with the law over these "things" he did. I wouldn't say that satisfied BLPCRIME, rest of his career seems not notable. It comes down to "guy does stupid stuff online and gets arrested, banned from social media". Oaktree b (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Family life is a small section, then the next section, then a looooong list of stuff he did and got arrested for. Being stupid online doesn't really make him notable. Could be seen as an attempt to shame the individual or as an attack page. Oaktree b (talk) 18:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Oaktree has mentioned that the page is largely a negative portrayal of him, edit history shows this page as being in a constant edit war, including from Mizzy himself along with several sockpuppet accounts of his friends, constantly trying to add pages for his friends and even add advertisements for Mizzy's spotify and t-shirt websites. Mizzy is clearly aware of the negative image he has online, but is using this wikipedia article solely as a purpose to gain further online presence. In reality, he is not notable. Tiktok users such as Pinkydoll are much more notable online, and even their pages are being discussed for deletion. Having random articles about your arrest don't make you notable. Matan Even, the "Bill Clinton" game awards crasher, has several articles written about him, including several from this week alone, and he doesn't have a wikipedia page either. Don't let Mizzy just get away with using wikipedia for free ads. 2600:1700:89C6:2000:84CE:DEC9:9C9D:8543 (talk) 23:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)— User:2600:1700:89C6:2000:84CE:DEC9:9C9D:8543 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep No shortage of articles regarding this internet personality - from The Guardian to The Independent to the BBC to, yes, The Daily Mail. Current delete votes seem to be factoring in quality of the page (or the individual the article is on) rather than determining notability. As in, simply because a youtuber is famous for "doing things and getting arrested", that does not discount valid coverage of them. Essentially, we can not use personal judgements regarding if coverage is about 'important stuff' or not (certainly many academic fields lack in practical importance, but there's no shortage of articles regarding fairly minor mathematicians and philosophers). The page is undoubtedly a bit of a mess, but that is also not grounds for deletion in any way. Page should likely be trimmed and potentially protected in order to prevent further abuse by both fans and opponents of this youtuber. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A MINOTAUR You have not addressed the policy issues raised in the nomination which are WP:BLP1E, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:SUSTAINED. It is not enough to show significant coverage of a BLP when that coverage falls within the same limited time frame and covers the same singular topic. Lasting notability is demonstrated by the subject being known for more than one notable event, and having coverage across time. Having many sources covering the same single topic in a one month time frame does not show sustained coverage and runs afoul of three policies named above. The sourcing is not sufficient to pass our notability policies in relation to WP:Biographies of Living People which are more stringent that GNG.4meter4 (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned above the BBC News coverage yesterday. Please also note coverage in Ireland last week and in Wales, yesterday
I find the suggestion that coverage all happened in one month, and that it was all related to one event, odd. Coverage is ongoing, spans many months and several events. CT55555(talk) 13:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think either 1E applies here but primary and routine coverage are explicitly excluded from establishing notability, regardless of whether they're independent or reliable. All of the coverage you've linked to far is both.. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please say more about how you think Jason Okundaye's analysis in The Guardian, the BBC News reporting and the piece in The Independent are primary sources and routine?
WP:ROUTINE is defined as such things as announcements...Planned coverage of scheduled events...Wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions...sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc.
I ask, because I feel confident you are mistaken on both counts. CT55555(talk) 16:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no analysis at all, so I can't say anything about the analysis. As for routineness, click the wikilink that says "Per Wikipedia policy". The relevant part is For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion. PST of OR links to the essay Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources, which has the section "Are news-reporting media secondary or primary sources?" Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC) corrected typo 04:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Though reading that bit again, it does seem to cover crime logs as well, cf also WP:CRIME and the nearby section, WP:NCRIME. Alpha3031 (t • c) 17:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't know what the various acronyms you are using mean ("PST", "OS", "cf") so that is somewhat hindering my ability to understand you here.
I think most people understand crime logs to be daily reports from police stations or or police forces with basic details of crimes. I think they are list or database entries with brief details. This is significantly and materially different from in depth reporting about single examples of alleged criminality in reliable and independent sources.
WP:PRIMARYNEWS is an essay that argues that breaking news should be considered "primary" and notes "Primary" is not another way to spell "bad". Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources." I don't consider this essay to be aligned with common consensus at AFD discussions where independent sources like BBC News, The Guardian etc tend to be viewed as optimal sources. Nonetheless, it seems like a moot point when even the essay does't argue against using such sources. Even still, The Guardian piece is not a breaking news story, but a piece of analysis. If we were to discount most news sources on Wikipedia, the encyclopedia would be a radically different from how it actually is.
WP:CRIME directs us away from creating articles about people accused of crimes if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.. There isn't. If anyone thinks any aspect of WP:CRIME is not met by the article, I think that they should improve the article, not argue to delete it, and I think that is supported by policy: WP:ATD. CT55555(talk) 19:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CT55555, sorry about the typo, it was late yesterday for me which is also why I did not do a full source review of my own. I have now corrected it. PST is a section of OR, and while primary sources can often in fact be the best sources for the facts, they are not appropriate for establishing notability. Both GNG and BASIC exclude primary sources for this purpose. Additionally, it seems fairly straightforward that news without analysis, that simply state what has happened, would be considered a primary source. While not explicitly defined so by OR, it is mentioned in many of its citations. However, if you want to dispute this interpretation I'm happy to take this to either a relevant noticeboard (probably RSN, as the RS guideline also touchs on the topic in NEWSORG, again, not explicitly stating it) or a RFC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I'm just kind of having a difficult time discerning how your argument fits into the policy links. This is not like local news or a tabloid, these are large articles from major websites discussing the individual, their backstory, and their cultural impact. To ask for verifiable articles suggesting notability, be confronted with three very solid articles from @CT55555, along with articles regarding the individual over the course of a year - and then say "Well, not those.".... I'm just not quite sure what would satisfy your criteria or why the bar would be set so high for this article in particular. These sources alone confer more verifiable notability than, I'm going to say conservatively, 90% of biographical pages on Wikipedia. I'm not even sure what the "singular topic" being covered here is, as there's a laundry list of items in this page. The break in? The Piers Morgan interview? "His content" as a whole?
I don't want to come off as harsh, but I'm having a hard time understanding the general 'pitch' of this AfD. A MINOTAUR (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A MINOTAUR Please see Beccaynr's comment below this. She did a better job at highlighting the relevant BLP policies than my initial nomination, and it expresses the concerns more concretely than what I was able to achieve. There is a certain threshold for when BLPs involving criminal activity become encyclopedic, and this hasn't reached that point. The coverage is entirely sensational and essentially WP:TABLOID press; even if found in normally reputable sources. This is a routine news cycle for sensational stories of this kind as not enough time has passed to indicate notability. We would need to see SUSTAINED covered (i.e a year or longer) that is not superficial (and these are) with neutral reporting (which these are not) that isn't sensational and designed to be click bait. When normally reputable media start publishing and behaving like disreputable media that is exactly when we need to crack the whip and enforce our BLP policy language and use good editorial judgement. A rose is a rose is a rose is a rose.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I'm sorry my friend, but saying that coverage from legitimate sources, with legitimate subject matters that explore the subject in depth like The Guardian's "The disturbing rise of Mizzy: this is what happens when culture values nothing but attention" - as well as a smattering of other sources, are not something I am willing to write off or even consider for a moment as "essentially Tabloid press... even if found in normally reputable sources". I'm not really sure how I would come to that. The shoe simply doesn't fit. This is not celebrity gossip, there is no gossip occurring here. Setting arbitrary boundaries that happen to be right outside what the individual of this article possesses come off asinine and just kind of like trying to do acrobatics in order to justify the AfD rather than it being abundantly clear deletion is warrented ("Oh well sure coverage lasts for about a year... but I'd like to see it last for a year or longer..." "Sure he has 3 or 4 good articles from reputable sources but... what if they were more reputable? I'm not actually going to count a few of them this time. Could we get 6 or 7?"). I'm poking some fun at you here which I hope you don't mind, but you can see my point. Beccanyr's main concerns seems to be that this article is some hit piece on the subject - but that doesn't come across to me and overwhelmingly the page and citations within it are just providing raw facts about the individual who in this case is primarily known for notoriety gaining acts. In summary, once we start to say "Oh the BBC is a source.. until I don't like it, in which case it's a sensationalist tabloid" we might as well bin the website. Again, I apologize for any harshness but I have yet to see what I consider a solid argument for deletion and remain rather immutable here. Cheers either way. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns are policy-based, including as broadly stated in the introduction section of the biographies of living persons policy: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
And this article, about an 18-year-old now banned from YouTube and TikTok, appears to have been built from a few WP:RSOPINION sources ("considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact"), such as The Guardian opinion about culture, an LBC source describing the subject as "Mizzy, the TikTok tearaway who has scandalised many viewers" [59], various reports of allegations and court proceedings, and limited coverage of the subject appearing on Piers Morgan Uncensored and getting 'screamed at' on a TalkTV show. And the coverage is not WP:SUSTAINED - sources in the article and this discussion date from May 2023, although I was able to find February 2023 coverage [60] of an arrest, with July follow up [61]; and brief January 2023 coverage [62] - so we appear to have less than a year's worth of coverage, a social media career (and related notoriety) now seemingly quite limited by various bans, and what appear to be low-level pending criminal charges that are not generating extensive or in-depth coverage.
Overall though, I am not saying "Sure he has 3 or 4 good articles from reputable sources but...", I am noting that in addition to the WP:BLP policy reasons for deletion, the notability guideline also outlines guidance for us to consider, even though a topic is the subject of news coverage and some commentary, and specifically when articles should be excluded as not encyclopedic. Beccaynr (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I said already, but with regards to if the coverage is sustained, there was BBC coverage six days ago. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66607521.
I find the reference to opinion pieces difficult. In other discussions people argue to delete when there is purely news coverage, saying that if there was analysis they would !vote to keep. And here we have analysis. I see pieces like the guardian as a good indicator of notability.
I agree that wikipedia is not a tabloid. I see how LBC is borderline, but the article is written from reliable sources and I don't see this article as spreading "titillating claims about people's lives". (emphasis on claims mine) instead it is doing what wikipedia should do, relaying neutrally facts reported in BBC News etc. I don't think this is titillating, I don't think the sources are tabloid (1 source, LBC maybe), I don't think the content is about "claims". CT55555(talk) 12:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From my view, available coverage does not establish a notable social media career for O'Garro before or independently of the pending allegations of criminal conduct and various related court proceedings, including some based on what appears to be a 2022 juvenile court proceeding, which is also publicized in this article. And now, due to various social media bans, to the extent there is coverage, it appears focused on e.g. brief round-ups of low-level criminal allegations such as the BBC report linked above.
O'Garro appears to have primarily had a brief burst of sensationalized attention from e.g. Piers Morgan; the article also includes what may be a WP:COATRACK about the BBC being criticized for what the article describes as "interviewing O'Garro to boost view numbers" [63] (aka sensationalism); O'Garro getting 'screamed at' on TalkTV in June [64]; the article also suggests an opinion piece from The Spectator [65] "praised" O'Garro [66], but it actually includes: "He does not deserve to become rich and famous off the back of his appalling conduct but his 15 minutes of fame should remind us that we are a long way as a society from harnessing the potential of all our citizens. He must do better but we can do better too."
So for this article, for this subject, notability does not appear supported by reports of allegations and criminal proceedings, two thinkpieces about culture and society, and three interviews, including one criticized for apparent sensationalism, another by Piers Morgan, and one where O'Garro is, according to the article, told by the interviewer, "You glared at her in a threatening fashion. You do that again, I'll drag you out by the hair." What appears to be missing are sources that permit the development of an encyclopedic article that is compliant with the letter and spirit (to borrow a phrase from Alexandermcnabb) of BLP policy; and whether according to NOTNEWS, NOTSCANDAL, or NOTPROMO, the short burst of attention, the basis for that attention, and the nature of the coverage further appears to support deletion at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reasons for deletion according to deletion policy appear to include a breach of the biographies of living persons policy and WP:NOT policy. The notability guideline has two prongs, such that an article can be asserted to be presumptively notable according to GNG but still excluded according to the What Wikipedia is not policy. This article began [67] on 26 May 2023 with a collection of opinion sources and news reports about allegations, but making apparent factual assertions of what can be commonly understood as criminal activity. Based on a recent source cited in this discussion (BBC), this subject is 18 years old, and the brief BBC report outlines a series of allegations. The current article [68] continues to state the subject has engaged in "illegal activities such as trespassing", and appears to source at least some of this to a non-RS WP:FORBESCON source [69]. The recent Irish Times interview-based coverage reviews what I think can be understood in Wikipedia policy terms as 'sensationalism' surrounding the subject, which is separate from simply being published in tabloid press - the WP:SENSATIONAL section in the event guideline appears to recognize that even reputable press can sensationalize subjects, and as an encyclopedia, we can strive to do better. From my view, beyond the WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE concerns based on the available coverage that appears to irreparably slant this article to negative coverage of allegations of criminal conduct and sensationalism, this article also seems contrary to the WP:NOTSCANDAL section of WP:NOT - this policy section includes, "Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person," and it does not seem possible to develop a neutral and balanced article based on reliable sources at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was able to review the sources fully and thought there might have been some secondary coverage in the articles written about the interview, but it seems like they too merely restate what has happened. Not able to find any better sources than what has already been posted. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    delete it 2.27.242.224 (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems like this article is just a list of arrests and court appearances. Liz Read! Talk! 05:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MOtivated by your comment, I have make edits so that the article is organised thematically: family life, social media activities, legal issues, media appearances and critical reception. CT55555(talk) 13:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TikTok gone mad. Young man behaves unpleasantly, discovers that notoriety≠impunity. Story ends. Per some sound arguments already made above (Notably that of Beccaynr), does not meet the letter or spirit of an encyclopaedic article. Yes, national media coverage would appear to meet the bar of WP:GNG, but in this case I believe WP:NOT trumps that - and in particular WP:PROMO. And please don't tell me that he'll pass WP:SUSTAINED if he does something else unpleasant and/or anti-social. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of WP:PROMO do you think is not met? I'd much rather we improved this article rather than delete it (WP:ATD). Regarding sustained, did not notice the coverage of him in BBC News 6 days ago? That seems like sustained coverage to me, what more do you seek other than ongoing coverage to meet WP:SUSTAINED? CT55555(talk) 13:10, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd perhaps consider laying down your keyboard now and letting the discussion go 'free' for a while... Sustained as in something beyond being a minor and transient public nuisance with a desperate appetite for self promotion (WP:PROMO). Being antisocial and unpleasant (for no cause other than garnering online attention) is, last time I looked, not itself something that creates an enduring impact on the arts, society, communities, engineering, research, human development or in fact anything else that would confer notability on someone other than some passing, perhaps prurient, press. Oops, alliteration. We don't generally confer notability on YouTubers, I'm not sure why we'd do so for one who intentionally breaks the law to get attention - even where coverage, fleetingly, results. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG via WP:BLP1E. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You think Mizzy, the social media influencer, is a low profile individual (criterion 2)? I can't tell if you are making an incredible argument, or have not read WP:BLP1E CT55555(talk) 12:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think Mizzy is a low profile individual and likely to remain so. Having a brief period of fame for low level crime stunts does not indicate lasting notability on wikipedia or longterm significance (ie "high profile" attention) in the real world. I very much doubt the world will be paying attention after these criminal charges have worked there way through the court system, and its likely he will go into obscurity.4meter4 (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOWPROFILE is only an essay, but it is widely used at AFD to help us decide if someone is high or low profile. People who take part in media interviews, self-publicity are never considered low-profile in my experience at AFD.
WP:NOTTEMPORARY is a part of a guideline and is clear: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. CT55555(talk) 16:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this user is low-profile and has no lasting notability except from a few random stunts. This does not meet BLPCRIME and therefore should be delete — Karnataka talk 21:09, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you have not participated in many BLP1E discussions at AFD. Metaphorically, read the temperature of the room. I think you will find that at AFD we do require longterm coverage of BLPs when evaluating BLP1E particularly in relation to crime; see WP:CRIME where it clearly states under our policy for perpetrators: "Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role. It's a standard measuring stick and this is policy; not an essay.4meter4 (talk)
  • Delete. Per WP:CRIME and more generally, WP:BLP. But also, just a clarifying point, WP:BLP1E specifically does not apply here, subjects must meet all 3 criteria, and this subject does not meet If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.. I appreciate the folks trying to improve the article from a valid BIO/BIO1E perspective, but I think BLP and CRIME override that here. —siroχo 03:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete Unlike someone like Akinwale Arobieke, who has received coverage spanning many years, there's no evidence that this individual is going to be long-term notable beyond the initial news cycle, which has only lasted a few months, failing WP:SUSTAINED. I also agree with the WP:BLPCRIME concerns above. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Also a notification was posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject TikTok CT55555(talk) 00:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't even know there was an 'Article Rescue Squadron', and have never seen these fell spirits invoked in an AfD before. Interesting magic... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a WikiProject that I am part of. A collaboration of editors who work to improve articles, especially useful for finding sources on difficult topics. I like the magic analogy. :-) CT55555(talk) 16:56, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Article Rescue Squad AWAY! I've not heard of this outfit either! Oaktree b (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider following the rescue list or joining the WikiProject WP:RESCUE, if you have an interest in article improvement. CT55555(talk) 03:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see also that it was brought up (specifically re. the Guardian article) that opinion coverage also interprets the base facts as we would expect analytical reporting to do, so this is a belated response to A MINOTAUR (and, of course, the later comment from CT55555 as well). WP:RSOPINION and the footnote in WP:OR that defines as primary op-eds, columns, blogs, and other opinion pieces draw a distinction that is not immediately straightforward or obvious. It doesn't help either, that what scholarship on the topic (for example [70]) often take the distinction as a given without clearly explaining how to distinguish between the two. I'm sure I'm not the best person to explain this, but while opinions are actually in fact secondary to the facts, at the same time the are not reliable as an objective view of the facts. We cannot use statements of opinion as secondary statements, we can only use them as a source on the subjective views of whoever wrote or said that opinion. It's the same as Morgan's "an idiot" and "product of his upbringing". There are ways for analysis to produce statements with similar meaning, for example if a journalist goes and talks to some psychologists or reviews primary research on the topic, but opinion coverage and incidental statements of opinion are not held to such standards in news publishing. I'm not sure I can explain this any better, but there is quite a bit about this in the archives of WT:RS and WT:OR, as well as in RS themselves, most commonly news organisations. It won't provide a 100% clear line, because there is no such clear line, but I hope it'll help when thinking about the difference. Opnion pieces are of course, not excluded under WP:NOTNEWS but WP:NOTOPINION. (and I agree that the mentions of 1E are kinda terrible and serve more to confuse the issue) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:44, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:SUSTAINED and is still notable today. Too early to consider deletion Nzs9 (talk) 05:33, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how you can state that...? The consensus above is that the subject does not pass SUSTAINED which is a policy that requires "longterm coverage" (ie coverage across time). That hasn't been demonstrated with this subject and the RS evidence which is all from a very short window of time.4meter4 (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He was in the news for a few weeks and yes he got a TV interview out of it, but when you move away the media coverage of that time, he will be considered just another attention seeking social media personality who just happened to use crime for "clout". I see a case for a deletion on WP:1E grounds but he certainly fails WP:CRIME criteria. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sustained coverage for a period of months in practically all of the highest profile UK news publications is, in my experience, sufficient to get over WP:NSUSTAINED. This wasn't a single event; it's multiple events, so BLP1E doesn't apply. This is someone actively seeking public attention, so the "low-profile"/"private person" elements of BLP don't apply. Just seems like a straightforward WP:BIO pass. And who can resist a story of someone who harasses people for money and clout getting into trouble? Seems like there's the possibility of a merge target for a list of internet pranksters, list of internet pranksters who have gotten into trouble, or an article on the sublime schadenfreude of watching internet pranksters struggle. Ultimately commenting rather than a keep !vote because despite all this, the spirit of BLP gives me pause: should an obnoxious kid's obnoxiousness be fixed in the public record forever? I don't know. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I'm worried about. I mean he did silly stuff now, this could be used to debase him when he moves on and gets a career and family and stuff, later in life. Say he runs for office, then they trot out the negative wikipedia article showing how "unusual" he was in his youth. Notability for being stupid online isn't really notable here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has received significant coverage from reliable sources, so meets the general notability deadlines. Some of the coverage is from events over a year apart. This isn't just a single event. Dream Focus 03:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These sources don't meet the standard at WP:CRIME as they are all contemporaneous new accounts, and are therefore not sufficient to pass WP:NOTSCANDAL and WP:BLPCRIME policies. GNG is not the only relevant (nor most significant) policy argument here as the policy standard for WP:BLPs in relation to crime is more stringent than GNG under other policy guidelines.4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_September_2&oldid=1174916592"