Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 13: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Lenz}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decision House}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decision House}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CCFilms}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CCFilms}}

Revision as of 23:09, 13 August 2023

< August 12 August 14 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lenz

Peter Lenz (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:BIO1E and WP:NMOTOR. This boy was only really notable for one event: his unfortunate death. All the other claims of significance are only sourced to his own blog. The levels he competed at fail our standards for significant coverage. This person just wasn’t notable. Tvx1 23:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tvx1 23:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Couple thoughts.
    1. First off, notability can surface after death. This may not be BIO1E in which case, the subject would meet WP:BASIC. Eg. Associated Press notes: Despite being only 13 years old and listing his profession on the Grand Prix website as "kid," Lenz was already a well-known racer. He had been riding bikes for six years, won nine national championships and nine regional titles, and appeared to be a rising star in a series that bills itself as a prep for riders 12 to 18 who hope to compete at a higher level.[1]
    2. Also, this appears to be a notable death which would meet WP:EVENT on its own, and if the consensus is that that the BIO is not notable, it may still merit a rework and move to Death of Peter Lenz. Beyond the immediate news coverage there were reactions that followed. For example, All Things Considered on NPR had a segment on it discussing the impact of the death ProQuest has a transcript: [2]. Here's a columnist from The Oregonian with an opinion piece about it [3]. Here's the WSJ reacting [4]. (there are a lot more contemporary reactions, I won't list more)
      To demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED, here's some secondary coverage of a memorial from the following year [5], an editorial from about 5 months after [6], here's some coverage from over 7 years later[7], some coverage in French from 8 years after [8].
—siroχo 08:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen I don't really see notability, it says he won "national titles", but I get the feeling they're not terribly notable. I would think it is like playing in Little League baseball; you can win titles, but we only really worry about the Little League World Series, and even that is a stretch. Young kid with a bright future, passed away too young. Oaktree b (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Moreover almost of these are sourced to his own website only anyway. That's a major no-no.Tvx1 14:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If an individual is notable, sourcing non-contentious material from primary sources is not an issue. You have asserted, but failed to prove, that there are not two independent RS'es providing non-trivial coverage. Jclemens (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the sources being primary. The problem is the sources being self-published by the subject or his family/entourage and that the claims of significance of his achievements all strem from them. It seems you don’t the understand thr difference between secondary and independent sources ( which are NOT the same). It’s perfectly possible to have primary but independent sources. Tvx1 12:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BIO1E. Known mostly for his death, and at his age (and brevity of career) made no significant contribution to the sport, with non-notable awards and racing series. Only wikilinks in the article are racetracks and locations. Article has a lot of filler and sounds almost promotional in tone with sources consisting mainly of press releases. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 22:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decision House

Decision House (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 television series. Only passing coverage ViperSnake151  Talk  22:37, 13 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! 20:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CCFilms

CCFilms (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)

Don't believe this is notable enough. No sources in article, and can't find any proving notability when searching either. Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there’s no sources Elttaruuu (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Tom Scott (YouTuber). Star Mississippi 11:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lateral with Tom Scott

Lateral with Tom Scott (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 can find no coverage of this podcast in any reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

European National Front

European National Front (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)

Absolutely no references, inline or otherwise. Preliminary Google search shows that this is unnotable . QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 13:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to William & Mary Tribe. Liz Read! Talk! 22:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe Fight Song

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

Insufficient independent sourcing on the page to show notability. I don't see any references outwith of the College which reference the topic. Possibly should be merged and redirected but I don't know where to JMWt (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to consider the merge proposal as a deletion alternative.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - per ATD. Redirects are cheap. Even if there was nothing to merge, a redirect is certainly a better option than deletion.
4.37.252.50 (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Mambwe

Mary Mambwe (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 made at least one appearance for the Zambia women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius XM Weather & Emergency

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

There is a lack of secondary coverage about this channel which leads to the subject not meeting WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per Jumpytoo Belichickoverbrady (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanuza

Vanuza (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 made at least four appearances for the Angola women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The most I was able to find was this short piece from 2021 about her recovering from an injury. JTtheOG (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. I draftified this article in the first AFD closure so that the article could be improved and submitted to AFD for review but instead it was moved back to main space. This AFD discussion will be closed as Delete. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajmal Selab

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

Article moved from draft with no improvement from prior AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajmal Selab Whpq (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please do not delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parwiz ahmadi (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Most of X peoples knows him" is not a Wikipedia notability criterion, because anybody could say that about anything if they didn't actually have to prove it. Notability is not a question of the things you say, it's a question of the quality and depth of the sourcing that can or can't be shown to support the things you say, and the sourcing in this article isn't cutting it as it isn't about him at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Notability has been proved in various links. 2407:AA80:314:94CD:247B:8580:C461:D76F (talk) 11:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is demonstrated by significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The only source provided that even comes close to aiding in establishing notability is this one. All the others are brief mentions, or just quoting what he is saying about something else, or doesn't even mention him. -- Whpq (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Whpq not enough notability. Only one source has WP:SIGCOV
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! 21:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alianne Matamoro

Alianne Matamoro (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 made at least five appearances for the Cuba women's national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. The most I found was this and this. JTtheOG (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Ordinarily, I'd redirect this article but the subject is not mentioned in the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Braisy Cabrera

Braisy Cabrera (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 made at least two appearances 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) 19:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the women's national football team. GNG not met, per nom. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Farzad ghaderi

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

This page was draftified by Syed Aala Qadri Kalkatvi with the rationale "Not notable and not edited well". The page Draft:Farzad ghaderi is very similar (see compare 1170203333 to 1170194633). I would contend that the same notability issues exist as pointed out by Syed. He fails WP:NMMA. I think that there is potential for notability for his participation in Wushu, but I cannot verify any of these championships. It is possible there are no english language sources I could find, but in my WP:BEFORE, I could not verify that he won the competitions stated. I have also found some information that contradicts information stated in the article. For example, the article states that at the 2022 Tunisia Kempo World Championships that Farzad Ghaderi won a 75kg competition, but I find that he came in third in three different competitions at that championship. Regardless, I cannot find enough to push him over any WP:SNG I could find or WP:GNG. I think that developing the existing draft with other sources to push over WP:GNG would probably be the best course of action. TartarTorte 19:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Promo/vanity page/COI, doesn't pass notability for MMA or WP:GNG. Lethweimaster (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is a lack of sourcing for the wushu championships and no indication that they are major events. Database entries do not meet WP:GNG and his highest ever MMA ranking was #531 according to fightmatrix.com . Nothing shows that any WP notability criteria is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 21:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analía Céspedes

Analía Céspedes (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 made at least one appearance for the Cuba women's national football team according to Soccerway. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention Point Philadelphia

Prevention Point Philadelphia (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)

Run of the mill local health non-profit for drug users. Fails WP:NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. given the improvement that has occurred since the nomination. More sources would be better but the one that is present should be sufficient for the subject. Liz Read! Talk! 21:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Louise Ipsen

Louise Ipsen (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 person does not seem significant. No other citations can be found. Google books found some passing mentions matching her name, but they could be for others with the same name. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I found no notable coverage to back up this article. Zero. It sorely fails WP:GNG and does not meet WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen Once sources used, while a RS, is barely a one-liner. Swedish Enclyclopedia? which seems ok, but I can't find anything else about this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One hit in Gscholar, appears to be a bio in German, but I'm not sure it's the same person. Oaktree b (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reason why you can't find sources about this person is because she is Danish. Thus, she may not have many English language references, because the English speaking world has, until the era of the internet, not been very interested to write about the more obscure subjects of Danish history, such as notable women. She is a Dane, and she is included in the danish language encylopedia of notable women of Danish history. If you judge notablity from how many English language references there are about her, then there are many, many notable women of history that you should delete from Wikipedia. Prior to internet, the English speaking world wrote very sparingly about the more obscure history (in this case, women's history) subjects of smaller countries such as Denmark. It is one of the good things about the internet era that these obscure topics can be translated and made availabile to the English speaking world, since foreign language references are accepted in Wikipedia. It would not be a good policy to contradict that development. --Aciram (talk) 21:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gscholar didn't turn up sources in any language, that's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not uncommon for obscure historical subjects which are less well known. Historical 19th-century women of small countries are not likely to have much information online even when they are notable. For example: there was zero results on Swedish actresses of the pre-1773 period online until they were given their first articles in Swedish language wikipedia. None. That was because Swedish theater history of that period was not even much known among Swedes, only the experts. The internet era is changing all that. Not every notable subject is yet online, particularly not about obscure subjects such as "women's history" which has long been neglected, and not all books are digitalized. They are however to be found in actual material books outside of the internet, in this case not English language books. --Aciram (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently missed the word "major" in my comment. Had you not missed it, I doubt you'd have thought your objection was warranted. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which notability guideline supports the inclusion of major business executives? pburka (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No notability guideline specifies categories of people of major interest. I'm surprised you don't know that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:16, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There are many versions of her names. So far, I have come across Christine Louise Ipsen, Christine Lovise Ipsen, Louise Ipsen, Lovise Ipsen, Bjerring, Bierring, Biering, Bjering, etc (and I had never heard of her before seeing this AfD a half hour ago). She is listed in the census of 1850 as Lovise Bjerring. -Yupik (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significance is established in the first couple sentences. This is not a living person so we do not need extensive sourcing. It seems that further sourcing is being researched though, and further strong sources if found will further bolster the case for keeping. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Aciram Elttaruuu (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mody Kidon

AfDs for this article:
Mody Kidon (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: totally lacks any sources about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A previous AfD seemed to determine that there was enough WP:SIGCOV in Hebrew language outlets to keep this article. Did you check such outlets before nominating this article for deletion? @Clarityfiend Let'srun (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Well, no, but:
  • It was a 2-1 lvote, and the Hebrew sources that one of the keep lvoters promised to add never materialized, and that was 10 years ago.
  • If he's so well known, there should be some English-language sources, and I wasn't able to find any. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My research did not convince me that Kidon passes the WP:GNG. As there is no good ATD target, I support Clarityfiend's motion to delete. If indeed deleted, please also remove the links to the article from his school and town. gidonb (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waterford Premier Intermediate Hurling Championship

Waterford Premier Intermediate Hurling Championship (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)

Can find no significant coverage in any reliable sources. Fails WP:NEVENT. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 17:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suriya Filmography Telugu

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

There is already a page called Suriya filmography. This page is therefore unwanted. Besides, Suriya mainly works in Tamil cinema. The films listed on this page are Telugu dubbed versions of his Tamil films. Trisha'sNemo (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Union for Reform Judaism#History. Using sources identified here. Weak consensus appears to be there isn't enough for a standalone Star Mississippi 21:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KESHER

AfDs for this article:
KESHER (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)

Propose deletion or merging into Union for Reform Judaism, the parent organization. Non-notable arm of a larger movement, has been defunct for 15 years, with no WP:SIGCOV that would justify a stand alone article. In the previous AfD discussion, editors suggested the existence of WP:RS that could enhance the article. I did a WP:BEFORE, finding none of import. Longhornsg (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Longhornsg (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somewhat selectively and without prejudice into Union for Reform Judaism#History. Kudos to nom for nominating (even though nominated 2 years ago – usually not a good idea, this time it was) and suggesting an ATD. This SPINOUT is yet another example of excessive fragmentation! Previous debate was as usual down the rabbit hole of notability. People forget that we also govern information through AfDs :-( gidonb (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I objected to the merge-without-discussion based solely on the article's content making some claims of notability--didn't see the previous AFD at the time. Indeed it's (still) hard to find sources due to the name itself and its fading into the past. Found a few details:
    • Had national conventions.[10] Not an independent source, but sufficient for the claim and demonstrates that the group at the time did at least some major things.
    • Was the only formal Reform-centric outreach/project for the approximately-college-age demographic.[11] Independent ref that specifically makes that analysis (New Voices (magazine) is itself a notable publication), and the fact that this commentary focuses on it adds notability itself.
I'm torn, as it seems to have some but not major notability, and that is mostly as a project or sub-organization of URJ. Given that it morphed from "part of URJ" to "fore-runner of, or remnants absorbed by, Birthright Foundation" (each of those has own article), it's an intersection-topic. I tilt towards keeping such pages as stand-alone because it increases navigability and prevents it from gradually getting discarded altogether from the merge-target. So I see "barely keepable" on notability grounds and "somewhat useful to have" on editorial grounds. DMacks (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for a Merge. If you oppose merging, then please offer what you think should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Gael Baudino. Liz Read! Talk! 05:47, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Strands Series

The Strands Series (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 bit of a large one - I'm wondering if *any* of these books as well as this "series" page should have pages. From what I can tell this is a minor fantasy series with very little engagement over time. Every book as well as the "series" page cites the same 2 references, both of which come from the same niche journal. Most all content on these pages is summarizing plot events rather than denoting any particular notability of the works. While not a formal metric, searching the books today results in "fan groups" of <100 people, suggesting the books also don't carry much widespread consumer notability.

If the consensus is to delete - I am unclear on if an XfD must be made for each book, as it seems to be an "all or nothing" situation. A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Edward-Woodrow :) [talk] 19:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the author's notability clearly established? I can't really tell from the extant article. If so, merging there might be preferable to a standalone article series. Jclemens (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can tell no - she does not appear to have any other works that are more popular than this series (though a few others do have their own pages, also with the same 2 references). They also seem to be almost exclusively composed of plot summaries - and further searching does not seem to bring up much in terms of actual real world notability outside these wikipedia pages and various websites that seem to be directly grabbing Wikipedia information. The author's page is almost entirely just a list of her books.
    It's a bit perplexing as there are quite a few pages and they've been around for some time, but It truly appears that these books are very minor publications with no real notability. A MINOTAUR (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't call Interzone niche - it's a very important British SF/F magazine. I also find that the author is definitely notable. She's in Contemporary Authors (sorry, my library subscribes to the Gale DB so the best I can give is Gale H1000122296 for a link) and the St James Guide to Fantasy Writers (Gale K2408000026). Gossamer Axe has many reviews, and at least one academic article about it (doi:10.1080/14735789509366588). The Strands is almost certainly out of print, so I wouldn't expect much of an online footprint for it. -- asilvering (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. I'm admittedly not very well versed in the genre - and had assumed it to be rather niche given the subject matter. I don't have any strong feelings towards deletion - but given the lack of online presence of the author or much discussion of her works it appeared at face value to be non-notable. A MINOTAUR (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    She falls into the '80s/'90s digital black hole - not recent enough to be online by default, but too recent to have been picked up in many digitization sweeps. They were more concerned with older material that was out of print or out of copyright at the time (20 years ago). Incidentally, that's about when these articles were originally written! Now those books are out of print and we're a bit SOL. Strangely, each book in this series does have its own individual article (with enough reviews to show notability), and this article doesn't even appear to be linked on Gael Baudino. It looks like this series article is almost entirely in-universe descriptions, which was normal around here in 2006 but isn't anymore. Since we have articles for the author and the individual books, this one seems a bit superfluous. We should probably redirect to author in this case. -- asilvering (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to author, Gael Baudino. See my above comment - we already have articles for each individual book, which readers will find linked on the author page when they get redirected to this article instead. -- asilvering (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Gael Baudino. There don't seem to be any sources discussing this series as a whole. There does seem to be some coverage of individual books (e.g. Crosby 2000, which discusses Strands of Starlight, p. 92 onwards), but this doesn't confer notability to the series. Redirecting any interested readers to the author's article, which provides some background information and points to the individual articles, is appropriate. I'd recommend the nominator create separate discussions for each of the novels if they don't think they're notable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting to Gael Baudino?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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


The result was keep. Consensus is clear, and policy-compliant arguments have been made with respect to the sufficiency of sources, even if some of these sources are not in the article. BD2412 T 01:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man: Lotus

Spider-Man: Lotus (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 fan film that immediately fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Two years since the project was announced, it has yet to receive significant coverage from high-quality sources, only low-quality ones such as CBR or MovieWeb. Focusing on the Internet controversy surrounding it is not enough. Additionally, this article was improperly created as a means to bypass the AfC process, after the draft page despite there already being a draft page (created two years ago) that was previously rejected at AfC by Dan arndt on the grounds of NFILM. (Note that Superman: Solar, another fan film closely related to this one, shouldn't have an article either.) InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Comics and animation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely disagree with your statement. First of all, when I created the page, I wasn't aware that there was ever a draft on the same topic and simply wrote it because I felt it was notable enough to have its own page. Do you need to be reminded of WP:AFG?
    This article is one of the most notable fan films of the twenty first century. It is currently sitting at 1,258 for most popular movies on IMDb. Are you advocating for all fan films to be removed from Wikipedia?
    The film has been noticed by numerous news outlets and isn't even comparable to Superman: Solar in media coverage; a quick Google search will show you that.
    I vote Keep. SaltieChips (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    — Note to closing admin: SaltieChips (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It may have been "noticed" by sources, but those are all unreliable or low-caliber sources that cover every viral phenomenon, every controversy, every meme, every rumor that pops up on the Internet. While such sources may be appropriate to be used as citations, they are typically unacceptable to demonstrate notability. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per nominator, but I don't necessarily agree with all of the nominator's points. Although comparing articles in this instance is irrelevant, it would be topical to bring up Prelude to Axanar, a Star Trek film that does establish what a fan film article should look like—if only because Paramount sued its filmmaker. I will change my vote if there is stronger coverage beyond perennial hype articles from marginally reliable sources, but I wouldn't hold my breath for a more reliable source to emerge. Spider-Man in film may be a good merge target. The article being a rejected draft is irrelevant; sourcing has increased since then. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per significant news coverage. —theMainLogan (t•c) 19:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC): If the Rachel, Glenn Quagmire, Dream, two spundtracks from Bluey, Listenbourg, PewDiePie, r/wallstreetbets, and Among Us are notable enough to warrant their own articles, so is this film. —theMainLogan (t•c) 00:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that, my friend, is textbook WP:OSE. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Textbook what? —theMainLogan (t•c) 10:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you need clarification on what WP:OSE means, or ...? InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, it would be nice. —theMainLogan (t•c) 00:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first sentence of WP:OSE: The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. In other words, "this other article exists and this is as notable as that" is generally not viewed as a valid argument. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I already struck it. —theMainLogan (t•c) 09:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's also worth noting that the page you're referring to is an essay with suggestions, not a page on the rules of this wiki. And I already voted to keep the page—I've already stated my opinion. Isn't that what matters? —theMainLogan (t•c) 12:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — Above points explain why to keep it, the film definitely surpasses notability requirements, you'd have to be living under a rock not to know about itwhen the news first dropped that the creators were racist you couldn't escape people talking about the film for a whole week. There have been many news articles about the film. The nominator is acting like fan films have never had wikipedia pages before, even though they most certainly have, and this one has an especially high budget. The draft was denied before the movie came out and was not a complete page, back then it was unclear if the film would even be released due to the controversy, but now we're at a point where the film has been released. Apart from being a film, the discourse around Lotus is an important contemporary example of racism in the film community and how the internet at large addressed it. With even more revelations coming up recently in regards to the film's troublesome development, it'd be the completely wrong move to delete it. ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 20:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No opinion on deletion, but it's a bit baffling to say that you'd have to be "living under a rock" to not be familiar with the "Spider-Man: Lotus" fan film. To the contrary, I would imagine only the strongest superhero / internet gossip fans likely have any prior knowledge of this film at all (and even that's a stretch). A MINOTAUR (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I am living under a rock if I hadn't heard of one of the tens of thousands of YouTube videos with a million views; for the record, I found this page through The Verge. Speaking to your arguments themselves: reliable, secondary sources establish notability. This article has neither, regardless of its "high budget". elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after reading through the arguments both for and against and re-looking at the sources provided I consider that it fails WP:NFILM, in that it lacks significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Shuttleworth, Catherine (2023-08-12). "What is Spider-Man: Lotus and why is it so controversial?". Indy100. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "Spider-Man: Lotus is a crowdfunded fan film that raised over $100k from backers. The film generated a lot of hype after a trailer for it was released in 2021, gaining 2.7 million views on YouTube. The trailer suggests that the film will centre on Peter Parker struggling with guilt and grief over the death of his girlfriend, Gwen Stacy, a storyline that hasn’t be explored particularly deeply by Sony or Marvel. ... Despite these swathes of controversy, the film premiered on August 10 on YouTube. At the time of writing it has been viewed more than 665,000 times."

    2. Sharma, Jahanvi (2023-08-12). "Film 'Spider-Man: Lotus' battles controversy due to the actor and the director's racist past". Hindustan Times. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "Spider-Man: Lotus, a fan film which was set to be released on 10th August, has sparked quite a loud controversy prior to its release. The film directed by Gavin J. Konop and starring actor Warden Wayne in the lead role, is facing backlash due to their racist past."

    3. Trejo, Yeseline (2023-08-13). "Spider Man Lotus: qué es una fan film y cómo ver en internet desde México" [Spider Man Lotus: what is a fan film and how to watch it on the internet from Mexico]. Diario AS (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "Spider Man Lotus protagoniza a uno de los superhéroes más populares y queridos de Marvel Comics; este famoso personaje llamado Peter Parker, ha sido replicado y adaptado en más de una ocasión. Ahora Gaving J Konop, director de cine realizó una nueva entrega seleccionada como Fan Film, es decir, un contenido realizado por los fans. La cinta tardó tres años y no es parte del repertorio de Marvel y Sony."

      From Google Translate: "Spider Man Lotus stars as one of Marvel Comics' most popular and beloved superheroes; this famous character called Peter Parker, has been replicated and adapted on more than one occasion. Now Gaving J Konop, film director made a new installment selected as Fan Film, that is, content made by fans. The tape took three years and is not part of the repertoire of Marvel and Sony."

    4. González, María (2023-08-13). "Spider-Man Lotus: todo sobre la película hecha por fanáticos" [Spider-Man Lotus: All About the Fan-Made Movie]. GQ (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "La historia de este fan-film sucede después de la trágica muerte de la exnovia de Peter Parker, que aparentemente ha sido provocada por su propio intento por salvarla. Esto provoca en él muchas dudas sobre si su alter ego debería desaparecer para siempre, pero en ese momento recibe la noticia sobre un niño con una enfermedad terminal que ha solicitado conocerlo y es así que Peter contempla si consolarlo en sus últimos días."

      From Google Translate: "The story of this fan-film takes place after the tragic death of Peter Parker's ex-girlfriend, which was apparently caused by her own attempt to save her. This causes many doubts in him about whether his alter ego should disappear forever, but at that moment he receives the news about a terminally ill boy who has asked to meet him and so Peter contemplates whether to comfort him in his last days."

    5. Dwinanda, Reiny (2023-08-13). "Spider-Man: Lotus Hadapi Kontroversi Karena Masa Lalu Aktor dan Sutradara yang Rasis" [Spider-Man: Lotus Faces Controversy Over Actor's Racist Past and Director]. Republika (in Indonesian). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "Spider-Man: Lotus adalah film penggemar yang diproduksi sebagai proyek gairah nirlaba, tanpa masukan sama sekali dari Marvel Studios atau Sony Pictures. Film ini dibuat tak lama setelah kematian Gwen Stacy. Plot mengikuti Peter Parker yang mempertimbangkan untuk meninggalkan masa pensiunnya sebagai Spider-Man untuk alasan yang baik."

      From Google Translate: "Spider-Man: Lotus is a fan film produced as a non-profit passion project, with no input whatsoever from Marvel Studios or Sony Pictures. This film was made shortly after the death of Gwen Stacy. The plot follows Peter Parker who considers leaving his retirement as Spider-Man for a good reason."

    6. Tamani, Luis (2023-08-06). ""Spider-Man: Lotus": ¿Cuándo y dónde ver ONLINE y GRATIS el controversial filme?" ["Spider-Man: Lotus": When and where to see the controversial film ONLINE and FREE?]. Líbero [es] (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "Alejado del caos que se produjo por los comentarios que realizaron, hace algunos días, se confirmó la fecha de estreno de "Spider-Man: lotus", la cual fue financiada por fanáticos del personaje, además de ser producida, en su totalidad, por jóvenes no mayores a los 25 años."

      From Google Translate: "Away from the chaos caused by the comments they made, a few days ago the release date of "Spider-Man: lotus" was confirmed, which was financed by fans of the character, as well as being produced entirely by young people not older than 25 years."

    7. Levandoski, Quinn (2023-08-10). "What Is Spider-Man: Lotus & Why Is It So Controversial?". Screen Rant. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "Spider-Man: Lotus is a fan film that aims to explore Peter Parker's grief after the death of his girlfriend and his internal struggles about how to be a hero and stand up for others in the face of insurmountable personal loss. The movie first gained attention when an IndieGoGo campaign succeeded in raising $112,079 USD in early 2021. Per the campaign, the project is "not for profit," presumably in an attempt to skirt issues of copyright from Marvel/Disney."

    8. Baker-Whitelaw, Gavia (2023-08-08). "What Is the Fan-Made Film 'Spider-Man Lotus' and Why Do So Many People Hate It?". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 2023-08-14. Retrieved 2023-08-14.

      The article notes: "Following in a long tradition of fanmade movies, Spider-Man: Lotus was filmed on a low budget, raising $112,000 on Indiegogo. Premiering last week, it’s a non-profit project due to its unlicensed relationship with Marvel. Soon, you’ll be able to watch it on YouTube for free. ... This week Spider-Man: Lotus premiered in LA, with a guest list of excited Spidey fans. However it didn’t earn such a positive response online, mostly due to a racism scandal involving the lead actor and director. So when you look up the premiere, you’ll find a ton of posts joking about it being a Klan meeting and generally mocking the film’s existence:"

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Spider-Man: Lotus to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All of those sources are low-caliber or potentially unreliable, unsuitable to gauge notability. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, the Independent is low-caliber or unreliable how? BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both Indy100 and the Hindustan Times are respected reliable sources.

Indy100 says, "Because indy100 is from The Independent you can still trust us to take our facts very seriously (even the funny ones). Some of the stories will have been inspired by the brilliant work in The Independent. Most will be from the crack team of indy100 journalists."

The scholar Lawrence Saez wrote in The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC): An Emerging Collaboration Architecture, a 2012 book published by Routledge in 2012 said "one of India's most respected newspapers, the Hindustan Times".

The other sources are reliable too (some are generally reliable while others are marginally reliable). But I am not discussing them because these two sources provide significant coverage of the film and are sufficient by themselves to allow the film to meet Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per nom, This article as it currently stands fails NFILM as it does not establish notability from reliable sources, instead relying on low-tier and some unreliable comic-oriented blog news sites. The controversy alone does not hold enough weight to support notability. The contents can be covered at Spider-Man in film#Other films along with other fan films and can be expanded upon in the already existent draftspace article before going through AfC. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I feel the movie is notable enough, since it has been commented on by Jon Watts and trended on Twitter. It is currently a pretty popular part of internet culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilypadgirl (talk • contribs) 18:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:TWITTERREF, user-generated content (such as Twitter/X), is unreliable, that includes trends which often are for a period of time and not always defining. Just because a director of some Spider-Man movies acknowledges its existence does not make it pass NFILM or WP:GNG. Just because you "feel" it is notable does not make it true in the case of policy and guidelines. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In sum, 8 of the sources are primary sources, 4 of them are unreliable, 12 are marginally reliable (there are 5 CBR articles), and none are high-quality sources. How does that satisfy GNG and NFILM? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That ignores the additional sources found by @Cunard including The Independent and Hindustan Times. I don't think anyone's said the article is beyond improvement but there's a clear demonstration sources exist and deletion isn't warranted. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 07:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we can pick and choose if a reliable source "don't count" because some people deem them "'marginally' reliable".★Trekker (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is draftifying the article not a viable solution to allow editors time to reconstruct the article with adequate sourcing? A draft existed before, and it's not like it would be completely undoing all the contributions put in thus far. A debate can be had on the current article's sourcing and what can be done to expand it to what meets standards, although I think that can be done once the prospect of deletion is out of the way and constructive expansion in draftspace is being worked on. I did realize that there is a bullet list section at Spider-Man in other media#Fan films which is where some information can be covered in the mainspace while the article gets a rework in draftspace. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In practise draftifying 99% of the time is just delayed deletion, I'm not a fan of it personally.★Trekker (talk) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think virtually everyone agrees that CBR and Screen Rant are much less highly regarded as The Hollywood Reporter and The New York Times. As I wrote above, while it's totally fine to use these sources as citations, they shouldn't be used to demonstrate notability, as they post about everything they deem newsworthy/clickbait-y. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While it is true they aren't as highly regarded as The Hollywood Reporter I'd also argue that The Hollywood Reporter also isn't anywhere near as highly regarded as The New York Times, that does not make the other sources worthless, and I do think at the very least CBR can be used to establish notability. A wesbite trying to stay alive and putting out a lot of content doesn't mean its content is worthless. "Good enough to use because its reliable, but not good enough to show notability" seems like a terrible road to go down.★Trekker (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. SaltieChips (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard Elttaruuu (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 23:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiana López

Fabiana López (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 notable for Wikipedia. Didn't win a medal. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 16:23, 13 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! 21:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment she is silver medalist at the 1986 Central American and Caribbean Games (foil team) and also medalist at the 1987 Pan American Games. As she was internationally active in the 1980s, sources should be searched at off-line Spanish-language sources. All-in-all, together with the source provided by BeanieFan11 I would say a weak keep. 109.37.152.36 (talk) 10:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steven R. Carter

Steven R. Carter (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)

Failure of WP:GNG per WP:ACADEMIC. His publications have not held a significant influence over his field, much less in general. Not too different from the regular university professor. GuardianH (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with original opinion. Aside from a singular (rather minor) award, there does not seem to be anything conferring notability to the point of having a biographical page.
A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 11:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Naivasha'

Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Naivasha' (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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 16:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. Only formally described species are considered automatically notable, and this fails GNG and SIGCOV besides. SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Baringo'

Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. 'Baringo' (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)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aplocheilichthys sp. nov. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talk・contribs) 16:01, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above. Only formally described species are considered automatically notable, and this fails GNG and SIGCOV besides. SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jest (framework)

Jest (framework) (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 WP:GNG. It's part of series of articles on open-source Facebook software; it's basically stuff that made and backed (both financially and via ads) by corporation which is only well known in limited circles. No need for a separate article. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 15:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Robert Parris

Mark Robert Parris (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find significant coverage to meet WP:BIO. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While standard diplomats might not be notable just because they are diplomats, heads of mission (ie: ambassadors) to other countries are (at least, in my opinion). I think more sources can definitely help there, but overall there is enough to meet WP:GNG and also WP:BIO.
Quick comment: that deprecated source in the article (#1) should probably be replaced with another reference. Losipov (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Well over 100 have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a list or category that tells how many have been deleted? — Maile (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taking Out The Trash (talk) 15:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article needs c.e., as this man had a very substantive diplomatic career before the Clinton appointment See External links - I've added a State Dept official bio of Mark Robert Parris. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense but if I see "Ambassadors are not inherently notable" one more time in an AFD (much less the 4 times it's stated here), I'm adding it to my list of Wikipedia's Most Overused Policy Cliches. Besides, being "not inherently notable" does not mean "not notable". Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But Liz, ambassadors aren't inherently notable. SportingFlyer T·C 18:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, notability is based on what sources are available. Currently in the article, one is a database directory. One is a press release. One is his biography on Brookings (which claims it's from the "White House".) One is a mere listing - not even a sentence saying he was appointed - in the Washington Post. One is his state department biography. And one is a link to a paper he wrote. That's only six, but of the eight in the article, two are re-used. So the phrase is being said over and over again because the only way he could be notable with these sources is if ambassadors get some sort of free pass, which they don't. SportingFlyer T·C 18:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, what you just said is what I'd like to see, an analysis of the souces for this article subject. Not just the throw-away line saying that ambassadors are not inherently notable which doesn't say anything about THIS article subject and the sources that have been found which could (or might not) provide evidence of notability. A general statement says nothing about this article that is being considered. That's my POV. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I completely understand, but also consider as someone who participates in a lot of AfDs, shorthand can be very effective way of contributing to an obvious discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 09:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Ambassadors are inherently un-notable.[sarcasm] Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I debated on whether to relist this or close it as a keep and I chose to relist it. We're on the keep side of things right now but it's really a weak keep in my opinion. Relisting so hopefully another week sparks a good round of discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How are we on the keep side of things when none of the keep !voters have shown any WP:GNG qualifying sources?!? SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An (imo convincing) NEXIST argument has also been made. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 12:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which offline sources might possibly cover him? US government sources should be well documented in online archives. SportingFlyer T·C 12:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not all ambassadors are notable, but it is quite likely that all U.S. ambassadors to Turkey are, given Turkey's longstanding importance in the region. BD2412 T 01:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's like saying WP:ITSNOTABLE. This biography needs to meet WP:BIO, concerns above from delete side is the lack of WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really; it's just a common sense statement, such as stating that ambassadors of the permanament members of the UN Security Council to each other are highly likely to be notable. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen oder Redirect to List of ambassadors of the United States to Turkey. None of the sources presented in this AfD satisfy WP:SIGCOV: all are passing mentions. This is unsurprising, given that this is the type of coverage that one can expect for most US Senate-appointed officials. Unfortunately, the suggestion that other sources might exist is WP:MUSTBESOURCES, unless evidence to the contrary emerges: US ambassadorships to Turkey are not the highest sought-after ambassadorships. I also don't think the source presented as SIGCOV by Actualcpscm fulfills SIGCOV: the article from Palm Beach Daily News is about an event the subject of this article moderated. Therefore, I have to agree with SportingFlyer, who in my view correctly points out that trivial coverage has only been presented so far, as I too have been unable to locate further online or offline sources that show or might show that this ambassador has received significant coverage, meaning that WP:BASIC is not satisfied. Pilaz (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to this, I've also looked into Turkish-American relations literature to see if Parris went beyond being namechecked, but it never seems to amount to SIGCOV. For example, [12] and [13] are passing mentions. Pilaz (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Ages of Man. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Silver age

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

Article is slightly incoherent, completely unsourced, and much of the text is a rather non-encyclopedic summary of a Greek Myth where the phrase "silver age" is used offhandedly.

I'm open if other users with more expertise feel that there is indeed enough material out there for this page to exist on it's own, but I'd like to propose deletion and/or for the article to be merged as a blurb on the Golden Age article. A MINOTAUR (talk) 14:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Mythology, and Greece. NotAGenious (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to a dab page and delete the Greek mythological details. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Ages of Man. There already exists a page Silver age (disambiguation), so changing this here into a disambiguation page does not make sense. Removal of the Greek mythological details would be a disservice to the interested reader, as in my view these are the basis for all other uses of the metaphor. I also don't think the summary is of any instance where the term is used offhandedly, but rather this goes back to Hesiod's story and what others wrote in the same vein. Sources are sadly missing, but these are easy to find in the respective Google Books and Google Scholar searches. I am not sure how much discussion there is of the silver age beyond recounting the story as in Greek sources, providing a basis for treating this separately from the overall topic, which in my view, is the Ages of Man story. But I did find some discussion in the papers "Archaeology and Hesiod's Five Ages" and "Lucretius and Progress". I would be happy to hear from those deeper into the matter. Daranios (talk) 15:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar Oh dear, what a mess. There is obviously an encyclopaedic topic here, but the article is equally obviously not in a satisfactory state. The article Golden Age isn't in great shape either, and I can't help but notice that the capitalization of the titles is not consistent which isn't exactly a good sign. Our best option at the moment might be to redirect (perhaps both articles) to Ages of Man and expand there with proper sources, splitting the article in the future if it gets expanded to the point where it would make sense to do so. I'm not convinced that this is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, so it might make sense to move this to something like Silver age (mythology) and moving the disambiguation page to this title. At any rate: if this is not kept as a stand-alone page, the disambiguation page should include a link to Ages of Man. I'm open to suggestions. TompaDompa (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Turns out we also have a Golden age (metaphor) article, which is likewise a mess. Looks like this area needs a major overhaul. TompaDompa (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is a topic worthy of encyclopedic coverage here. The Hesiodic silver age might even be notable enough for an article on its own (as there are numerous sources which discuss the five ages), but it isn't necessary to question this, as what is found in Hesiod is far from an isolated example; see, for example, Dwayne Meisner's Orphic Tradition and the Birth of Gods, p. 270, which states that Hesiod operated within a wider context of myths of the ages and reinterpreted them to fit his own objectives, pointing to [e]vidence for earlier myths of the ages [which] has been found in Persian, Hebrew, and Vedic sources. Meisner gives several examples, citing these to West's The East Face of Helicon; looking at West, he appears to devote pp. 312–9 to this topic, which includes discussion of the silver age on its own. Meisner's book is on the topic of Orphic literature, and so discusses this in the context of the three races (gold, silver, Titanic) in the Orphic Rhapsodic Theogony, recorded by the Neoplatonist Proclus; the fragment of Proclus in question is a highly significant one, and Meisner devotes a fair portion of his discussion to the silver race, pointing out another two fragments (one from Proclus, one from Plutarch) which talk about the silver race specifically, as well as quoting West's The Orphic Poems, which talks about how the role of Cronus is altered from the Hesiodic narrative (i.e. he is demoted from gold to silver). To this can be added the interpretation of the ages by Proclus (in terms of his Neoplatonic schema), the interpretations of Hesiod's five ages by modern scholars, and, in Meisner's words, the ancient authors from Plato to Juvenal [who] engaged with the Hesiodic myth of the ages, reworking the myth in their own ways that reflected their own interests, all the while making “implicit evaluations and creative interpretations” of Hesiod; Meisner points out Aratus as one significant example. I think there is definitely an article worth having here, and I think there is enough to be said about the silver age specifically to keep this separate from Ages of Man; I would be very much opposed to any suggestion that the Greek mythological details should simply be deleted. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just remembered Van Noorden's 2015 study of the Hesiodic races (cited by Meisner), Playing Hesiod: The ‘Myth of the Races’ in Classical Antiquity, which would be particularly helpful for interpretations of the silver age by both ancient authors and modern scholars; Ctrl+F gives a total of 169 mentions of "silver" in the book, and there appears to be at least one discussion of 3 or 4 pages devoted to the silver race. – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on redirecting to Ages of Man?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Ages of Man per TompaDompa. That is the primary topic of the main topic of this page, and the remainder of this page is disambiguation, which exists. In considering where the reader will find the best information, they will do so on a single page on the primary topic, rather than on a page that pulls out one of the ages from the primary topic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. But I'm leaning towards a Merge to Ages of Man.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will agree with the suggested merge to Ages of Man. Both articles need improvement, and most(?) of what Michael Aurel found could be used there. It may be that we could someday either split that out or even have a WP:BCA here, even soon, so I'm not opposed to a keep, but merge is fine for the time being. AfD is not cleanup, but I'm not opposed to cleaning up when the opportunity presents itself —siroχo 06:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, most of the sources I gave could also be used at Ages of Man. While I do think there is enough for a separate article, most of those in favour of a merge here seem to be suggesting that it is probably the best short-term solution, and that, in future, a separate article could be created again; I wouldn't say I'm necessarily opposed to that course of action. – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. Although I was nudging towards a Merge, the comments made to that suggestion were that this was obvious the 2nd choice for editors arguing to Keep this article. I didn't appreciate the strong sentiments of those editors so I'm relisting this discussion, with the knowledge that there is also support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Ages of Man, at least an appropriate title and a suitable redirect target. There seems to be little or nothing to merge, really. It is quite possible that the scholarly sources would enable at least the parent article to be much improved with cited analysis; it might even be that there is enough scholarly analysis that we could have a separate article for each age, but that is at the moment very far from proven, so a redirect is all we need at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Liz - dumb question: when the decision is made to merge, who actually does the work? Does the closing admin do it? Does it always get done? What if it doesn’t?
    I can see that in some cases this might involve adding a sentence to the target article. In other cases, there might be a fair amount of effort required to thread content into multiple places in the target.
    —A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merges rely on volunteer editors, like everything else. If the work doesn't get done in reasonable time, the matter can be revisited. Of course if all we need, as I suppose, is a redirect, there's almost nothing to do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we rely on other editors to handle the Merges. Often a Merge is done by an editor who participated in the AFD discussion and is familiar with the content of both articles. Originally, when I first started closing AFD discussions, I thought that the closer was responsible for doing the Merge so I left those discussions to other admins to close. I soon learned that this was not the case. I don't know for sure but I guess we have editors who focus on Merges just like we have editors who specialize in Page Moves or responding to certain article tags. But it's best when it's an editor who really knows the material well. I've seen sloppy Merges and when this happens, it's no better than just Redirecting the article to the target page. Liz Read! Talk! 21:20, 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 redirect‎ to Planetary romance. There was no consensus on what content could be merged to that target, so no merge for now. Objections to merging were based on sourcing issues, not appropriateness of merging in principle; accordingly, if reliable sources are found, merging content from the page history to the target would likely be in accordance with consensus here. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sword and planet

Sword and planet (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)

"Sword and planet" is a rarely used term that is more or less synonymous with "planetary romance", which is much more widely used. A conversation on Talk:Sword and planet has led to a consensus that redirecting the page to planetary romance is the right approach, perhaps with a sentence added to the target page mentioning the term, if that can be sourced well enough. Piotrus, one of the participants in that discussion, suggested that since most of sword and planet is unsourced, and what is sourced would not survive as an article if the unsourced material were deleted and would not be merged into the target, it would be effectively equivalent to a deletion and so AfD should be the venue. Siroxo found these uses of the term: [14][15][16][17][18][19] but none are enough to establish that GNG is met for the term. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge lightly to planetary romance. didn’t know this wasn’t supposed to be synonymous. Not an individually notable genre. Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For unsourced but unproblematic content (no copyvio, promotion, or attack/defamation) redirection or merging is always preferable to outright deletion, because the history is maintained and it is possible for a non-admin to see the history and retrieve content for improvement from it. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I would propose to simply change the article to a redirect, without deleting history. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or weak merge while preserving history, per my talk page comments on the article talk page (I've also done my BEFORE, tried to verify some content in the article, and sadly conclude that it is very ORish). And yes, most sources treat those terms as synonyms, so proposed redirect/merge target is correct. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Planetary romance. As noted here and on the talk page, sources largely treat the terms as synonymous. I don't know that there is any content worth merging as both articles are at the moment rather poor. A "Terminology" section explaining the connection to sword and sorcery/sword and sandal on the one hand and Romance (prose fiction) on the other would be helpful, and such a section could also potentially go into detail about what distinctions sources that do not treat the terms as synonymous make. TompaDompa (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way—and this has no bearing on this discussion as such but might nevertheless be of interest—I found the following quote from Gary Westfahl on the appeal of Edgar Rice Burroughs's approach to portraying Barsoom in this manner (though Westfahl never mentions either "planetary romance" or "sword and planet", so it might not be useable here): Burroughs's depiction of an advanced but decadent civilization further allowed for stimulating inconsistencies, in that one could logically believe a culture at that stage would have retained aspects of its past science and lost others; by picking and choosing what might have been remembered and what might have been forgotten, Burroughs could generate scenarios for thrilling encounters, like the incongruous scene depicted on the Ballantine Books cover of The Gods of Mars—a furious sword-fight waged on top of a futuristic aircraft. (The Stuff of Science Fiction: Hardware, Settings, Characters, p. 154). TompaDompa (talk) 02:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mizanur Rahman Khan

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

No evidence of notability. Two obituaries used as sources and looking for sources I did not find any significant coverage that would contribute towards notability. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete Seemingly non-notable, though some light searching indicates that he was a rather influential journalist/editor at the largest newspaper in Bangladesh. Would err on the side of delete unless someone (perhaps with better access to Bangladeshi sources than I) could provide evidence of greater notability.
A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show some of them here?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence J. Campbell

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as a failed judicial nominee. Also fails WP:JUDGE. Redirecting to Barack Obama judicial appointment controversies seems like a possibility here. Let'srun (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Goodall Institute

Jane Goodall Institute (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:CORP. Some independent sources mention the subject but there is no WP:SIGCOV to speak of and a lot of these sources are either from the subject's website or press releases/churnalism orchestrated by the subject.Icicle City (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

—siroχo 21:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 21:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mad Wax: The Surf Movie

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

Article about a short film, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NFILM. The only notability claim in evidence here is that the film exists, which isn't automatically enough in the absence of a WP:GNG-worthy volume of third-party media coverage about the film to externally validate its significance -- but the sourcing consists of two directory entries that aren't support for notability at all, and one short blurb on a blog that doesn't represent enough coverage to vault this over GNG all by itself.
In fact, I strongly suspect that this was really meant as a WP:COATRACK for the soundtrack album, since the creator's edit history pertains much more strongly to music (including the band credited with the soundtrack's creation) than it does to film -- but albums aren't "inherently" notable just because they exist either, and still have to be shown to have GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about them, but absolutely none of the sourcing here addresses any potential notability under WP:NMUSIC either.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt this film, or its soundtrack album, from having to be the subject of quite a bit more media coverage and analysis than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medium is a user-generated blogging platform, and thus doesn't count as GNG-building coverage per WP:MEDIUM, and the Forte link isn't taking me to an article about this film, but just to a blank page that keeps feeding me "recommended" other articles it wants me to read. Bearcat (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Forte link does dwell upon the film and is signed (John Foss). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)19:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only a COATRACK for the soundtrack, but it was certainly also made as an infomercial for the surfboard manufacturer's products, as most surf and ski films are. Nate • (chatter) 16:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources exist:
  1. https://www.surfertoday.com/surf-movies/mad-wax-the-surf-movie
  2. https://www.surferrule.com/mad-wax-the-surf-movie/
  3. https://www.surf30.net/2020/01/mad-wax-la-parafina-magica.html
  4. mentions in studies on surf films: https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/940602/06020042.htm ; https://filmlexikon.uni-kiel.de/doku.php/s:surfenimfilm-2483

-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:39, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're not looking for blogs, directory entries or glancing namechecks of its existence in lists, we're looking for analytical coverage about the film in reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add. The film is repeatedly presented as a cult-classic of its genre. See:

  1. https://campaignbrief.com/world-wide-minds-ben-nott-pays/；
  2. https://surfingworld.com.au/watching-making-surfing-motion-pictures/　；
  3. https://www.theinertia.com/gear/altra-olympus-5-hike-low-gtx-hiking-shoe-review/ ,
  4. https://www.surfertoday.com/surfing/the-magical-surf-wax-with-teleporting-powers

etc. There are many other sources. This film seems clearly notable and I will leave it at that.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)

  • Delete: Sure, there is a source for the film's release and its spinoff. But what about the soundtrack? As of now, I don't see it. Also, because of Wikipedia's demand for sources, just having one clearly isn't enough. HarukaAmaranth (話) 02:15, 20 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! 21:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB is the first in google search, then a surf website, then pinterest and amazon. There is nothing to be found for this film, making it non-notable. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 18:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Khesraw

Ahmad Khesraw (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)

Despite being capped at international level, I can't find any evidence of meeting WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I have looked at the other language Wikipedia articles and searched in Farsi (احمد خسرو) but still found nothing of use. Database sources like Soccerway seem to be all we have. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Spartaz Humbug! 10:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions of Vladimir Putin's death or incapacity

Predictions of Vladimir Putin's death or incapacity (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 mixture of trivia, news-of-the-day, and speculation masquerading as biography. Yes, all these can be documented. No, none of it mattered even three days later. People obviously hope that Putin goes away somehow, but again, that's not an encyclopedic subject. Any actual event of consequence belongs in Putin's biography, not sequestered in a list such as this. They do not belong anywhere here at all. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Löschen per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTSCANDAL. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the article is needed. It is more like speculating and trying to predict the future. Cwater1 (talk) 14:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination does not present any policy-based arguments for deletion and actually should be counted as a Merge !vote and not Delete (i.e. "Any actual event of consequence belongs in Putin's biography, not sequestered in a list such as this.") The argument "The do not belong anywhere here at all." [sic] is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
    Further, our WP:CRYSTALBALL policy (an argument that OP did not make it) does not apply as that policy refers to predictions of future events. This is an exhaustively WP:RS-sourced list of past predictions that received WP:SIGCOV for the act of predicting this subject (in other words, sources are largely third party reporting on the sociological phenomenon of predicting Putin's death, versus the originally published predictions). This is not unlike our long-established articles:
That lots of these articles get created is only evidence that plenty of people have no idea what belongs in an encyclopedia. Yes, pundits predicted the end of the USSR over and over; that shows that these sorts of predictions are worthless, and really there's no argument made that these predictions were important. Ditto for the Google and Wikipedia article. These articles get created because they don't require a lot of work, not because they are valuable, and the message of these (which is really common knowledge in the fields of pundit-reading) is that these predictions are usually bunk— which is why most of these were flashes-in-the-pan which were forgotten about when pushed aside by the next news cycle. As for 2011 end times prediction, it should have stayed in the main Harold Camping article, along with all his other manifestly false prophecies of the end times that in the end everyone forgot the specifics of. You're making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and in the end you've simply directed me to more articles that ought to go. Mangoe (talk) 07:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"You're making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument" Mangoe - with all due respect, you're not making any argument at all. You haven't cited any relevant policy in your nomination or in your latest comment; "none of it mattered" is not a reason covered by our deletion policy for the removal of content. In my !vote I actually had to come up with a policy to argue on your behalf (i.e. CRYSTALBALL) just so I could respond. Chetsford (talk) 08:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything that passes GNG belongs on Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's categorically incorrect. Notability is necessary but not sufficient. Failing WP:NOT is one reason something that is notable might not belong on Wikipedia. TompaDompa (talk) 21:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If something is NOT then it can't pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can. Passing WP:GNG merely requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There's nothing stopping something like that from running afoul of WP:NOT in one way or another. TompaDompa (talk) 22:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing listed on that page can really have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.★Trekker (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can (if not it would of course be entirely superfluous). How-tos and game guides are one example. Unverifiable speculation is another. Genealogies are a third. If we want to go really silly, today's weather certainly receives significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. TompaDompa (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"there's no indication that any of them had lasting significance" Hmmm. That doesn't appear to be correct.
  • This[27] 2015 Vox article covers the history of predictions made in 2012.
  • This[28] 2023 New Statesman article covers the history of a prediction made in 2022.
  • This[29] 2022 report from the Center for European Policy Analysis covers the history of predictions from 2003, 2005, and 2021.
  • This[30] 2022 New York Times article mentions predictions from 2017 and 2020.
etc., etc. I can keep listing these, unless you'd prefer to just read the entry? Chetsford (talk) 07:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first three sources are opinion columns and blogs. The NYT article doesn't discuss predictions in depth – it reports a few opinions about Putin's health itself without thorough analysis. It's a WP:PRIMARY source and it isn't focused on predictions.
I don't think an article speculating about the health based on rumours would meet WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. As it stands, the article mainly addresses predictions, and the sources provided don't satisfy WP:EVENTCRITERIA in my opinion. Most publications that touch on predictions cover a handful of specific contemporaneous predictions, rather than addressing the phenomenon of predictions holistically.
Additionally, upon reviewing the linked NYT article, WP:FRINGE might be a more suitable rationale for deletion if the article in question presents rumours circulated by journalists and bloggers that contradict assessments from MI6 and the CIA as reliable expert opinions. PaulT2022 (talk) 09:50, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The first three sources are opinion columns and blogs." No, that's completely incorrect. Are you reading the right article?
In any case, I realize I've posted several responses so I'll limit my comments here to this one item to avoid bludgeoning: CRYSTALBALL doesn't apply here. CRYSTALBALL discusses predictions of future events. This article is a historical timeline of past predictions and is about the predictions themselves as historical events, not the content of the predictions. If this article discussed predictions of Putin's death occurring in the future then it would be covered by CRYSTAL. But there isn't a single example of that (perhaps it would be better named "Past Predictions of ...). Chetsford (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the four sources listed in your comment above. Sorry if this was unclear. PaulT2022 (talk) 23:52, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having finally had time to look at the four sources, I find they are all saying variations on what I'm saying: that the predictions themselves are insubstantial rumors. The articles refer to past instances as examples of how they are not notable because they never amounted to anything. I just don't see how this supports a keep of this article. There is clearly a place in Putin's bio for the persistence of rumors about his health, but it needs to report the substance of the references given, rather than burying the story in a mass of detail whose only relevance, according to the analysts, is that no single prediction is important because all of them are wrong. Mangoe (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I seem to have to keep reminding people, this isn't about notability. Mangoe (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, they are rumors about a dictator whom a lot of people would like to go away. Nonetheless, they are ephemeral speculations of no lasting import. Mangoe (talk) 03:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As in the three articles linked in my comment. And yet these articles and many others like them are not deleted. Wikipek (talk) 07:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Paul is dead" is about the phenomenon, a specific urban legend which is documented as such. It was widely reported on at the time and later. It happened, and it was a notable rumor which got notable coverage. This is not the same.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. for the sheer entertainment value of the rumors. Yes, I believe it is in the same ballpark as "Paul is dead", and even "Elvis is alive" being turned into a humorous moment in the movie "Death Becomes Her". Putin doesn't give us much to laugh about. Let us have this. — Maile (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66, while I see your point, I don't think I've ever seen the argument in an AFD that we should keep an article for its entertainment value. Wikipedia, after all, is a very serious place. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Liz - Ah ... well. — Maile (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to concur on this. We have areas for entertainment (see WP:Department of Fun, but it's nearly always in the userspace or occasionally Wikipedia namespace (see Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-man, an older "official lunacy" and one of my personal favorites). While I would support the inclusion of this article, I don't support it for this reason, and I would recommend all humor and entertainment on Wikipedia be in userspace. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; in addition to previous arguments made regarding the impact of his death, I personally believe that we should not have to worry about CRYSTALBALL if multiple clearly reliable sources are making these predictions. If all we're doing is covering the world's theories as stated by reliable sources, then I don't think we're doing anything wrong. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 17:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously they aren't reliable if the predictions don't come true! Mangoe (talk) 03:05, 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 delete‎. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Isfara missile attacks

2022 Isfara missile attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article lists a large number of non-English references, but some people think this is a hoax. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Fumikas Sagisavas Feed those sources into a machine translator and you’ll see they say absolutely nothing whatsoever about any missile attacks. Classic WP:SNEAKY trick.
The infobox and body are self-contradictory. Because there was no missile attack (let alone two). Only some shooting and shelling which is already covered by an article.
The use of ballistic missile attacks in a border skirmish would be highly notable and attract coverage outside the region.
Thus I decided to call it “blatant” since thirty seconds of critical reading (even without checking the sources) will indicate the highly sus nature of the page.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Problematic sourcing and a BLP Star Mississippi 11:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rayoe

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

Article about a musician that does not meet WP:NMUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Sources are not WP:RS. Jamiebuba (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 11:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sources have been updated to include more WP:RS sources. This is my second wikipedia article. and I am hopeful to cover more articles on ghanaian musicians. Cobbyannor (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
added more sources. in ghana most news articles are written based on comments or interviews from other musicians. I added so many sources earlier because i was trying to make the article as extensive as possible. i noticed most ghana articles about entertainers are not really extensive. with this rayoe article have added more sources and updated sources to ensure they are WPRS and also i used the Find sources: Google (books · news · to find news on Rayoe which i added as a source. for instance, this article https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Ghanaian-musicians-don-t-support-their-own-CHASE-334058 was found when i clicked on the news and i have added it as a source. i think the deletion tag can be removed . this discussion can be closed. thank you all for helping me to be a better wikipedia contributor. i am hopeful to cover extensively more ghana entertainers musicians. thank you. quick one example of the extensive research done.. i search for Rayoe's real name and through that i found this article https://theboombox.com/drug-trafficker-avoids-prison-despite-incriminating-rap-lyrics/ and i added it to the sources far earlier.. that helped make the article more extensive. Thank you Cobbyannor (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
more WP:RS sources have been added.. And there were already WP:RS sources in the article. Cobbyannor (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting since the article has been updated since the last relist. Thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 10:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

deletion tag can be removed now Cobbyannor (talk) 10:11, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cobbyannor, the AFD tag must remain until this discussion is closed. Liz Read! Talk! 01:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Rayoe-Kwesi-Arthur-and-8-other-rappers-projecting-hip-hop-culture-in-Ghana-1820717 Yes No Publishes copyvio, see above ~ ✘ No
https://www.pulse.com.gh/entertainment/music/stonebwoy-endorses-rayoe-the-dagomba-boy-as-the-us-based-rapper-begins-world-takeover/fc22hwz Yes ? Yes ? Unknown
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/Hip-Hop-artiste-Rayoe-eyes-international-market-1502528 Yes No Publishes copyvio, see above Yes ✘ No
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Ghanaian-musicians-don-t-support-their-own-CHASE-334058 Yes No Publishes copyvio, see above No ✘ No
https://www.pulse.com.gh/entertainment/music/rayoe-kwesi-arthur-and-8-other-rappers-embracing-the-future-of-hip-hop-in-ghana/9sepjzc Yes ~ No Unattributed copy of source 1 ✘ No
https://dailyguidenetwork.com/rayoe-ready-to-take-over-the-world/ Yes ? I could not find any editorial practices or indication of oversight. Likely insufficiently reliable for notability Yes ? Unknown
https://theboombox.com/drug-trafficker-avoids-prison-despite-incriminating-rap-lyrics/ Yes ? No This is about a different person. ✘ 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}}.

Source assessment by Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 16:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 12:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jela Cello

Jela Cello (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 subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. I made a light BLP edit before nominating. Perhaps someone who reads Serbian can provide a claim and several independent, reliable cites to notability. But from my reading, there isn't any. JFHJr (㊟) 04:07, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jela Mihailovic) so Soft Deletion is not suitable so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 11:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 10:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X. Liz Read! Talk! 21:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Klein (Survivor contestant)

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

Notable for winning only Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X. He also finished 12th in Survivor: Winners at War, but I doubt that makes him also notable. Furthermore, he hosted only one local TV program and no other. I've yet to see his notability outside Survivor. WP:PAGEDECIDE should apply if neither WP:BLP1E nor WP:BIO1E does. Moreover, appearing at least twice on Survivor doesn't make the person notable. George Ho (talk) 09:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot: it should be redirected to Survivor: Millennials vs. Gen X or list of Survivor (American TV series) contestants. George Ho (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as George says. GNG not met Belichickoverbrady (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do we have a target for redirecting the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 10:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gbenga Adeku

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

Article about an Artists that does not meet WP:NCREATIVE and WP:GNG. The sources cited are not enough to to satisfy WP:N and are merely passing mentions of the subject. Jamiebuba (talk) 09:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "A Tale of Shared Values Between a Father and His Son… - THISDAYLIVE". www.thisdaylive.com.
  2. ^ Saint, Ekpali. "FROM PLASTIC WASTE TO A WORK OF ART". Fairplanet. Retrieved 21 July 2023.
  3. ^ Mirror, The African (30 November 2022). "Gallery: Three visual artists in Nigeria are turning trash into impressive valuable artworks". The African Mirror.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 10:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5, AvinashCabral. A10 may well have also applied but I didn't look into it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goa Island (India)

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

The article seems misleading and lacks verifiable sources. The author claims there is an Island within the state of Goa known as Goa Island or Island of Goa. I couldn't find any sources mentioned in the article thats states the same. An exact copy of the article tone was previously created on Goa Island article by a blocked user. But I reworked the article from zero as it was actually an Island of Mozambique. This seems like a case of WP:OR. Rejoy2003(talk) 07:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Talk:Goa Island (India) page of the article for the justification of the page's existence as well as the reply to User:C.Fred for the sources.
You may not find the exact name (ie. Goa Island) in sources for two main reasons:
1. Historical references to this island (Ilha de Goa) is in the Portuguese language, not English; since Goa was under Portuguese rule, not British.
2. Due to the construction of several bridges in recent history, connecting the island to other parts of Goa, it gives an impression that it is not an island. Zocdoclesson (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources, in the form of historical maps:
Notice the piece of land called Ilha de Goa is surrounded on all sides be water - which makes it an island. (Ilha is the Portuguese word for Island)
This same body of water can be seen today. A quick on any navigation app (eg. Google Maps) will show you the island surrounded by water.
Geo Coordinates for reference: 15.4725025, 73.9491687 Zocdoclesson (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Muhabbet

Muhabbet (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)

Clearly fails WP:NSINGER. Not notable. A BLP with no references at all. The external links are a self published web page and IMDb which is user generated. Does not meet WP:GNG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:37, 13 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! 05:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sylverina Damilola Olaghere

Sylverina Damilola Olaghere (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)

BLP of a successful career woman who does not seem to meet any of our criteria for notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:57, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Chakram

Sri Chakram (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)

Almost completely unsourced/original research/promotional tone. Entire articles relies on one production source quoted from the lead actress. One unreliable review (broken link). No reliable reviews/other sources. DareshMohan (talk) 05:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bittersweet Bundle of Misery

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

It seems to fail WP:MUSIC. A Google search confirms the chart position mentioned, but other than that, it seemingly lacks significant coverage. Losipov (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:NSONG and peaking at 22 on the UK national chart. Note that searching proquest this song is noted in quite literally dozens of independent RS. There is enough factual / critical coverage out there to build up a start class article or better over time. Keeping in mind we don't need coverage to the level of GNG when meeting an SNG, we have, for example [34] His voice on tracks like Bittersweet Bundle Of Misery has a slightly out of tune, but intentional, quality about it., [35] 'No Good Time' and 'Bittersweet Bundle of Misery' also contradict the received opinion that Damon was the tunesmith in Blur and Graham was the obscurantist., or [36]The recent single Bittersweet Bundle of Misery resembles The Archies' Sugar Sugar as much as Blur's Coffee and TV, So NSONG holds up well in this case. —siroχo 06:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Siroxo I don't quite follow your argument here. NSONG makes clear that the chart criterion does not on its own establish notability. The sources you refer to, as well as everything else I could find, through proquest and elsewhere, is passing mentions. The song is frequently mentioned as an example or illustration of the musician's abilities, but I haven't found any analysis of the song itself. I don't think we should Keep based on the shaky grounds of NSONG, and I'm not seeing any sources that meet WP:GNG. We also aren't looking at other SNG criteria, so I do think we need GNG-level coverage. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While this one may meet GNG, as I didn't do an exhaustive search, I don't think NSONG actually requires GNG-level, or the SNG wouldn't need to exist at all. Note that this subject does not fall afoul of the exclusionary criteria If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, as I saw coverage unrelated to the album, or articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. I am confident we can write a start-class or longer article on this song. Since it doesn't meet either of the exclusionary criteria, and meets other guidelines, I am satisfied the SNG is met. —siroχo 10:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But in these sources, the song is never the subject of the article/review/etc: The coverage required by NSONG is non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the song/single, its musician/band or of its publication, price listings and other non-substantive detail treatment. Even in the best examples, the song is mentioned and perhaps used as an example of a quality of the singer's voice, but that's it. This is not substantive detail treatment, even by the lower standards of NSONG. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: NSONG makes clear that chart listing is not enough on its own to establish notability, and none of the other sources provide any analysis of the song. We have plenty of mentions, but no analysis of the song out of which to establish notability and build an article. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Actualcpscm (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a disagreement over how WP:NSONG is to be interpreted with regard to this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we still need to hear from additional editors on varying interpretations of the relevance to WP:NSONG in the context of this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this itnis a great song. Do not be a spoilsport :( 84.67.12.174 (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel and Esk College

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

There are no references and the college no longer exists after merging with two other colleges over 10 years ago to former Edinburgh College.

I don't believe it meets WP:GNG

I see Two Options, Deletion or Merge with Edinburgh college 1keyhole (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, and sigcov exists across several years, deletion would not be the best outcome here. A merge might be ok at some point, but Edinburgh College is not in the best of states at the moment either, so I don't necessarily recommend rushing it as part of an AFD. Long term this would slide nicely into a History of Edinburgh College article. —siroχo 06:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The number of words spent on a subject is irrelevant towards notability. It is the depth of the coverage that counts. The Banner talk 12:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, The number of words, while an imperfect measure, provides some "depth perception". While six words is not likely to provide sufficient depth, 600 very likely does. Many thanks to Siroxo for providing this useful information. — Jacona (talk) 00:45, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disappoint you in this matter. The Banner talk 09:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Banner, Indeed. — Jacona (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but lots of words spent on insignificant issues does not help notability but a limited text about a significant issue can do so. The Banner talk 18:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
visits by Members of Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament to schools, colleges, and universities are quite common, and such visits do not necessarily augment the significance of these institutions. 1keyhole (talk) 06:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like more evaluation of the sources found and, hopefully, the decent ones added to the article. I'm reluctant to close as Keep a completely unsourced article. Also consider the nominator's suggestion of a Merge to Edinburgh College.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 13 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! 03:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. This was a complicated discussion in which it seemed like half of the accounts participating were IP editors so duplicate votes can not be completely ignored as a possibility. But through it all, I see only agreement on one reliable source with the other references' independence and SIGCOV being questioned. I was also influenced by the fact that this individual's primary notability comes from his polling organization whose article was deleted due to a perceived lack of notability.

I do want to mention that the nominator, User:Vergilreader did his case no favors by bludgeoning this entire, long AFD discussion. You could have easily been blocked from participating in this discussion, please do not respond to every comment in any future AFDs you start.

I do understand that this closure decision might go to Deletion review for evaluation and I can only wish the editors participating there good luck in sorting this out. I also have no objection to this article being restored to Draft space for further improvement but if it is just moved back to main space, you can expect a speedy CSD G4 deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shieh

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

Article is poorly sourced and may be created by Alex Shieh, or someone who knows him. For example, the middle name listed (Kim-Hyunchul) can't be found anywhere else on the internet. This is either entirely made-up or created by someone who knows Shieh personally. Same can be said about his exact birthday. Overall, this article is entirely favorable of Shieh and fails to include any dissent of his opinions, which there have been plenty of. Additionally, creator of the page User:Stopasianhate has been blocked for sockpuppetry, and the user who removed the redirect User:Keepabortionlegal35 hasn't created any other articles, let alone without an AfC. Vergilreader (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The unsourced information has been removed. SoniaSotomayorFan (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism and Massachusetts. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete This fellow did something interesting in high school - one thing. It got attention and he appeared on TV, and there was a short bit about him in the New Yorker in the more chatty section of the contents. He is quoted in some articles, like in Wired, but is not the focus of those articles. He also has been writing articles for reasonably impressive journals. Yet I do perceive him as a one-trick pony until proven otherwise. (I also did some editing, moving his writings outside of the references, and removed an unnecessary ref. The article is fairly ref-bombed.) Lamona (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, likely a case of WP:TOOEARLY. Also worth noting that the consensus on the "something interesting" he did in high school was deemed not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Vergilreader (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    However, part of my point is the article is not at all neutral. Before being removed, lots of unsourced information seemed like it could only have come from Shieh or someone who knows him personally. The alternative is it was completely made up. Either way, none are fit for a Wikipedia article. Vergilreader (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*I was going to stay neutral on this but now I'm leaning towards keep. Nom's concern with sourcing/unsourced info seems to have been addressed. As for the 'one thing' critique, a quick scan of the sources shows at least two 'things' have gotten WP:SIGCOV in big national outlets like the New Yorker, ABC, or Fox: the political polls and the affirmative action controversy. However, I'd be willing to change my !vote if nom can give us a WP:DEL-REASON, because the current objections (neutrality, sourcing) can be/have been fixed though editing per WP:ATD. Right now, I'd say that this guy technically meets WP:BASIC, albeit not by much. SoniaSotomayorFan (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things. First, I'd argue that the coverage doesn't meet the general notability requirement because it is not "independent of the source." Aside from Rolling Stone and CBS Austin, which make passing mentions of Shieh's opinions, all the other sources include Shieh either on screen as a speaker or are his actual columns/op-eds. Note the WP:GNG says specifically, "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it."
    And, taking a closer look at WP:JOURNALIST, Shieh meets none of the following criteria:
    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. Vergilreader (talk) 19:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 20:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Known for one thing that is, itself, not worth an article. "National attention for a column" is... not saying much in 2023, particularly when the sources are two video blurbs, one of them from an unreliable source. That adds effectively zero to the scale, leaving us with not enough. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar The only two keep votes are accounts created within the past couple of weeks (after a separate page was created), while delete votes all are experienced editors. Vergilreader (talk) 06:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now one of those has been discovered to be a sock. So, now one new account and an IP. Vergilreader (talk) 02:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep because the subject meets Wikipedia:Notability. Regarding WP:JOURNALIST (taken from my comment here), Per WP:NBIO, "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below [such as WP:JOURNALIST in our case]."
In reference to various additional occupation-specific criteria, such as WP:JOURNALIST, the policy also states, "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."
Thus, even if the subject does not the meet WP:JOURNALIST standards, this alone is not valid reason for deletion, if WP:NBASIC is still met. I believe it is, as significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists. Here is a source assessment table:
Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
New Yorker Yes Story is written by a journalist at the New Yorker based on several interviews and original reporting. The journalist draws his own conclusions, makes independent observations, and editorializes levying judgements and criticism. Yes The New Yorker follows established journalistic standards and is a reliable source. Yes The entire magazine article is focused on Alex Shieh and his classmate and their doing polls. ✔ Yes
Fox News No The subject is talking about himself. No Consensus says Fox is not reliable. Yes The entire article is dedicated to Alex Shieh. ✘ No
ABC News Yes Yes. Statements of fact are fact-checked by the anchor/author of the article and said in ABC's authoritative voice, such as where the subject is going to college and the specific details of the court ruling. The subject's opinions face scrutiny from the other guest and the host. Yes Consensus says ABC is reliable. Yes Alex Shieh, and another student, are the focus of the coverage. ✔ Yes
Rolling Stone Yes Yes. Written by an independent journalist who compiles information from interviews and court rulings. Yes Rolling Stone is not reliable for politics, but the article is used to verify biographical details, not political facts, which falls under culture and is considered credible. Yes Alex Shieh, his biographical details, and his views, are analyzed and rebutted for over WP:100WORDS. ✔ Yes
WHDH Yes Yes. This segment features clips of the subject speaking but is narrated by an independent reporter who makes independent judgements and conclusions based on interviews and original reporting. Yes This news station is credible. Yes The subject is the main focus of this coverage. ✔ Yes
Zeit Yes Yes. Time is an independent news organization. Yes Time is credible. No The article is about Nikki Haley, not the subject. ✘ No
Columns No These are written by the subject. Yes The Boston Globe is a reliable source. No The subject is not the mian focus of his own writing. ✘ 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}}.
IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your analysis here. To start, this doesn't even address the point User:Lamona brought up about WP:1E. Even if the source analysis is completely accurate, this would warrant a delete by summary judgment. The source analysis seems to suggest there may be two events (Phillips Academy Poll coverage and affirmative action coverage). However, the consensus I pointed to previously is that his polling was not notable, and he therefore cannot be known for that event. Wikipedia's policy is "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." If the editors of a page such as Affirmative Action believe his role is large enough to be in that article, perhaps he can be added there. But, Shieh's role in the Affirmative Action movement simply is not large enough to warrant a separate article. He is known only for his opinions leading up to and immediately following the SFFA v. Harvard case.
But, for the sake of argument, I'll also discuss the source analysis. The analysis seems to confuse significant coverage from count of quotations or speaking time. Wikipedia policy is defines significant policy as something that "addresses the topic directly and in detail." The topic of this article is Alex Shieh. Someone discussing an affirmative action argument Shieh made does not address Shieh, it addresses an affirmative action argument. Most of the sources included only address Shieh as an affirmative action critic and Brown University student, before allowing him to speak to the screen about his opinions (not himself). A true source with Shieh as a subject may describe something like his college application journey or story of getting involved in Affirmative Action, for instance. My main objections are below:
  • ABC News: Lindsey Davis introduces Shieh for less than five seconds at the start of the video, before he debates affirmative action with another student. Shieh is not a subject of this source here, affirmative action is.
  • Rolling Stone: Firstly, this is definitely a political piece, as it fundamentally addresses affirmative action, a political issue. The article is filed under the "Politics" section on the header, so any assertion to the contrary is misleading. So, the reliability of this source is questionable. And, WP:100WORDS is just an essay, not consensus wikipedia policy. But regardless, little information about Shieh's background aside from his ethnicity and education is given, with a little more attention to opinions he has.
  • WHDH: Again, Shieh is simply a messenger in this clip, not a subject. He is described briefly (less than 15 seconds total) with his title, age, school, and organization, before Shieh and the anchor discuss polling results. Subjects here are Phillips Academy and the Phillips Academy Poll, not Shieh.
To summarize, below is my source analysis table (excluding the ones you already labeled as not counting toward GNG, leaving blank the ones I agree with your reasoning and judgment):
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Vergilreader
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
New Yorker Yes Yes Yes Significant parts of article the article are focused on Alex Shieh and his classmate and why they started doing polling, as well as future plans. ✔ Yes
ABC News Yes Yes No Shieh is not a subject of this source and only receives a brief introduction. ✘ No
Rolling Stone Yes No Rolling Stone politics is not considered a reliable source, and this article is in the politics section. No Shieh's opinions are briefly featured, but he and his actions are not the subject, even though the article may discuss opinions that he has. ✘ No
WHDH Yes Yes No Shieh is shown here because he is discussing a non-notable organization's polling results. He only receives a brief introduction and is not a subject. ✘ 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}}.
Vergilreader (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the user who originally created a separate article on this topic, I think I have a unique perspective on this matter. I'd originally interpreted Wikipedia guidelines like User:IAmHuitzilopochtli, but after reading User:Vergilreader's analysis, am inclined to agree a separate article is not needed. If an article creator has any special permissions in an Afd, please expedite the delete process. Jfkadmirer (talk) 23:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just some context about Jfkadmirer's claims above looking through their edit history. Jfkadmirer previously engaged in an edit war to instate a bizarre one-sentencer (see here) about how Shieh competed in varsity pole vault in high school, which is not at all what he is known for and read like vandalism/prank. Then Jfkadmirer improperly attempted to draftify a redirect (see here). That "separate article" version edits is not at all what this current version here is. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the full picture. The first time I removed the redirect, I'd intended to use that text as a placeholder for a draft. It was then (rightfully) redirected back since I'd accidentally done the whole article. Of course, when I moved it to draftspace again I did it wrong, but at the time I believed a separate article was needed (though I no longer believe this). Jfkadmirer (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I mostly agree with the first source assessment table, with a minor disagreement where I see the merits of the nominator's point (see my table below). However, I also find the nominator's reading of Wikipedia policy a bit selective and misleading at times.
  • About the one event policy, WP:BLP1E says We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant, and his role was both substantial and well documented.
All three conditions must be met for exclusion under WP:BLP1E. I think 1 and 2 are not:
Condition 1: Sources we both deem reliable have covered the subject in two contexts, affirmative action and polls. His specific poll group being found non-notable over a year ago is of no relevance here.
Condition 2: WP:LPI defines a low profile individual as not seeking out media attention, and a high-profile person as someone who might have many scheduled media appearances with notable media. Shieh is not low-profile because he voluntarily engages in media appearances on television and through his columns on topics besides polls and affirmative action.
  • Regarding source analysis, it seems like there is mostly consensus, but I believe the nominator's understanding of WP:SIGCOV is not correct. The policy says Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. So, whether or not Alex Shieh, or polling results, or affirmative action is the main topic is a pedantic and meaningless distinction. So is a distinction regarding whether coverage is about Sheih or Sheih's opinions--aren't his opinions an aspect of the subject as a journalist that should be included in the wiki article? What makes the coverage significant is the fact that aspects of Alex Shieh are addressed directly and in detail which provides sourcing for all sorts of claims in the wiki article such as his approximate age, education, and career details without the need for original research on our part. Given the emphasis placed on Shieh, it seems a stretch to call such coverage a trivial mention, rather than sigcov. Here is a modified version of the nominator's source assessment table that outlines areas of consensus, as well as my objections.
Source assessment table: prepared by User:172.59.190.251
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
New Yorker Yes consensus view Yes consensus view Yes consensus view ✔ Yes
ABC News Yes consensus view Yes consensus view Yes Shieh and his work are addressed directly and in detail, so that we can source claims made in the wiki article without doing original research ourselves. And, there is more than just the Lindsay Davis clip. There is also a clip with David Muir, and an online news article

(concurring with IAmHuizilopochtli, disagreeing with Vergilreader)

✔ Yes
Rolling Stone Yes consensus view ? Is Rolling Stone reliable for sourcing biographical facts that happen to be included in the politics section of the magazine?

(Unsure on stance)

Yes Shieh and his work (and his opinions which are relevant to this page) are addressed directly and in detail, so that we can source claims made in the wiki article without doing original research ourselves

(concurring with IAmHuizilopochtli, disagreeing with Vergilreader)

? Unknown
WHDH Yes consensus view Yes consensus view Yes Shieh and his work are addressed directly and in detail, so that we can source claims made in the wiki article without doing original research ourselves. The clip addresses actions Shieh has undertaken (getting grant funding and building an automatic dialing system for instance)

(concurring with IAmHuizilopochtli, disagreeing with Vergilreader)

✔ Yes
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}}.
In summary, I think this should be kept as the subject does not meet the WP:BLP1E criteria for exclusion, and multiple sources determined to be reliable and independent per consensus from the nominator themself do indeed include WP:SIGCOV (not to mention the New Yorker, which the nominator agrees meets the GNG requirements in all three categories). 172.59.190.251 (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brazen misinterpretation of WP:1E, but I won’t blame you since you’re an IP (and presumably inexperienced at Wikipedia). This is certainly in the context of a certain event. A court ruling and its media coverage is considered an event. How can an organization (The Phillips Academy Poll) be an event? And, how can someone be known for an “event” that isn’t notable? Additionally, to the low-profile individual part, the page you describe says a high-profile individual “ Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication, website, podcast, or television or radio program, as a "media personality" (a.k.a. "public face" or "big name"), a self-described "expert", or some other ostensibly (or would-be) notable commentator.” Shieh is not any of these and therefore isn’t high-profile. So, WP:1E certainly applies.
Again, I find issue with your interpretation of significance, which is understandable since you’re an inexperienced IP. You highlight “ directly and in detail” yet none of your alterations to my assessment actually show Shieh’s coverage being direct and in detail.
  • ABC: Shieh’s opinions are certainly explained in detail by himself, but again, that is by himself, not someone independent. The actual independent coverage from the anchor simply makes a passing mention to a few of his credentials like his college. Also, per WP:SIGCOV, multiple publications from the same org don’t count extra.
  • Rolling Stone: Your independence and sigcov columns contradict. Sure, perhaps biographical details are accurate, but then you’re claiming the description of the author’s work is also even though it’s in the politics section? And, again, Shieh is barely mentioned as I’ve discussed in my previous comment on this issue.
  • WHDH: The “work” you mentioned is only discussed for fifteen seconds at most. Definitely just a trivial mention, the majority of the clip is about the org itself, not Shieh. And, notice what you listed is stuff that the org did.
Overall, I completely stand by my previous comment supporting WP:1E and the source assessment. Vergilreader (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did the source assessment table header originally say User:IAmHuitzilopochtli? And why did User:IAmHuitzilopochtli hide it so quickly? Vergilreader (talk) 02:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar Crossed out confirmed sock/duplicate comments. Might be a good idea to relist with cleaner debate.66.171.166.43 (talk) 23:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting all socks and duplicate comments were in favor of keep. 66.171.166.43 (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Perhaps this is COI like my original nomination reason? Almost as if the first edit made by User:SoniaSotomayorFan was to cover up a mistake by User:Keepabortionlegal35. Just speculation to be taken with a grain of salt. Vergilreader (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject is passingly notable for running an unusual polling service and for inserting himself into the debate on the SCOTUS' decision on affirmative action. Individually they might not be enough but having both for the same subject must admittedly be considered in combination. Additionally, the subject has chosen a field (journalism) which is likely to increase their publicity and exposure in the future but also has already done so to some degree (e.g. the interviews and published articles which are with a generally reliable source). So while parts of the material might be promotional, they should not be discounted either. However, a COI warning should be applied if the article is kept to prevent future abuse. - Indefensible (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With the socking and the competing source analysis tables, I'm going for a Final relist and hope some uninvolved editors can take a second look at this article and we can reach a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Löschen Brifly talks about him here [42], but I don't think he's more notable than the other student interviewed in the story. Sourcing appears primary in the article, not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Kid gets interviewed about a policy change and writes articles on same subject" isn't notable, yet. Too early, but if he keeps writing as he has, might very well be notable in the future. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That neglects the polling group he started in high school, which is the subject considered more notable by some above. He got coverage for 2 items primarily, not just the affirmative action case. - Indefensible (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, he certainly got coverage, but the problem is more so the following:
    1. The polling group is not notable.
    2. Aside from New Yorker, all other coverage involving the poll of Shieh only has passing mentions of Shieh—he is never the subject of articles himself. And of course, one cannot inherit notability from org.
    These points suggest Shieh can’t be known for the org. Simple coverage itself isn’t enough. And, he still fails WP:JOURNALIST. Vergilreader (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The New Yorker ref can be used to argue that what he did regarding the polling service was notable in my opinion, even if the group itself was not deemed to be notable enough to have an article. - Indefensible (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not too sure what I think about a single article being sufficient to avoid WP:1E, let’s see what others think. Thanks for the perspective! By the way, what do you think about the source assessments for GNG? Vergilreader (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Both you and IAmHuitzilopochtli (and I see now there is an IP editor as well) agree the New Yorker ref supports GNG, so ignoring it as Oaktree b did is a mistake in my opinion and there should be no question on at least partial notability for the subject. The question becomes more of the other references as you asked, mainly concerning the SCOTUS' affirmative action case. I am leaning towards keep but have not fully decided yet. - Indefensible (talk) 19:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess it depends on how much “partial notability” is enough to override WP:1E. You seem to think this is enough, while I, Lamona, and XOR'easter think otherwise, but let’s wait for a few more opinions. We can agree to disagree here.
    What other references are you looking at? The only other SCOTUS related source in contention is ABC News if you look at the IP’s table. I personally don’t think ABC meets sigcov, but even if it did, would two sources (New Yorker and ABC) even be enough for an article per GNG and WP:JOURNALIST? Vergilreader (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you where you asked "How can an organization (The Phillips Academy Poll) be an event?" The subject does not seem like a good fit under WP:1E because their notability is not based on such an event. It seems like a borderline case overall, honestly the best outcome in my opinion would be close as no consensus. - Indefensible (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main claim of notoriety seems to be regarding the High School "polling firm" created - but this is shaky to define (what exactly constitutes a "polling firm"? I have to imagine that a poll conducted by students has been featured on at least local news before, so the question then centers around some abstract margin for what makes a "polling firm" notable). Regardless, while impressive, this does not seem significantly more notable than many other long-term projects done by Ivy League prospect type students around the world. His work as a journalist also does not seem to have yet conferred enough notability to justify an biographical page.
A MINOTAUR (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCompletely agree. This is too soon, a page can always be created later if he becomes more notable. 2607:FB91:D74:12E4:5046:DA26:BD6E:C1BE (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Upon further reconsideration, I now understand the poll is more impressive than the typical high-school project.A MlNOTAUR (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case it is not clear, I (actually @A MlNOTAUR) did not change my opinion "upon further reconsideration", and it's a bit strange and worrying to have someone impersonate me just to try to cancel out my rather banal opinion to delete. I maintain that this page warrants deletion and that the project, while nice, is indeed not anything significantly notable to the point of having a biographical page. I'd recommend that the person impersonating me, who I strongly suspect has some degree of conflict of interest, understand that this type of behavior often only ends up being detrimental to their goals. A MINOTAUR (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly an account impersonating User:A MINOTAUR. Crossing out edit. Vergilreader (talk)
  • Keep after further consideration per above, but needs COI warning. Phillips Academy Poll was deleted in July 2022, but if you look at Phillips Academy#The Phillips Academy Poll there were new reliable sources added with the election later that year, so its notability has increased since the deletion. Therefore arguments should no longer be based on its previous lack of notability in my opinion. The New Yorker, WHDH, and NHPR refs in particular suggest notability. This case seems borderline overall but other refs such as from ABC should push towards inclusion; note the subject of the ABC ref is not the SCOTUS decision but rather how the outcome will affect students--including the subject of this article. We should expand coverage of the encyclopedia given the opportunity in such cases. - Indefensible (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I originally thought this too, which is why I created a separate page for the subject originally. I agree that the polling org perhaps has increased notability now, but remember that per WP:INHERITORG, this doesn't make Shieh notable. I don't see enough refs right now to make the individual notable. Jfkadmirer (talk) 02:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of the sources which support the polling group also support him though. Like a Venn diagram they would be 2 circles with significant overlap. There is some more recent coverage on the polling group now that he is not longer there, but also there are some more refs for him from the affirmative action issue. - Indefensible (talk) 02:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What sources exactly? NHPR for example doesn't even mention Shieh's name. Most refs I find of the org actually only mention it in the context of the polling data. Jfkadmirer (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    New Yorker is the main ref, there seems to be no controversy over counting that. WHDH is good in my opinion. NHPR is good for the polling group, and the subject indirectly. Also counting at least partially some of the more controversial refs like ABC, Rolling Stone, Fox, and the Boston Globe articles even if primary; they are secondary but enough in addition. - Indefensible (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A collection of weak sources that don't each meet GNG is generally not a good argument for the subject being notable, and primary sources especially should not be considered towards notability. Like User:Jfkadmirer notes, I don't think NHPR counts at all since Shieh's name isn't in the article. New Yorker being the "main ref" isn't enough alone, Wikipedia is not a place to recite a single source with a bunch of minor facts from other sources added on. None of these articles suggests anything toward meeting WP:JOURNALIST either. Vergilreader (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never felt that WP:JOURNALIST was particularly applicable in this case. As I mentioned earlier, I do not think WP:1E particularly applies either. Mainly looking at the New Yorker which seems uncontroversial and counts as you and others reviewed, in addition to WHDH and the collection of additional sources. In any case, may reply to directed questions but not looking to argue further and will move on to other subjects. - Indefensible (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the editor that created this version of the article, I disagree with the deletion reasons above. There is clearly more than 1E, polling (1) and AA (2), (a previously deleted article on his polling does not negate it from being an event which received sigcov). The New Yorker in particular, but also WHDH, cover him in-depth with regard to that. And I agree with the 3rd table, as I have reviewed the sources in question and do find the coverage significant.
Keepabortionlegal35 (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely an "uninvolved editor" like User:Liz was hoping for since this is an account that made one of the (three) attempts to remove the redirect from this page. This vote is just the assumed position of someone who created a separate article (User:Jfkadmirer's delete vote is noteworthy for this reason) and provides no new arguments. Vergilreader (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rolling Stone probably fails independence. Indefensible is wrong to hint that "partially counting" is acceptable for sources like NHPR. But, WHDH (along with the New Yorker) is enough to push this into keep, since the source does have a significant portion describing what the subject does and a bit of biographical information as well. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we agree on Rolling Stone. But no, WHDH describes what the polling organization does, not directly what the subject does (other than his title and age). It is a passing mention of Alex Shieh, who himself is also talking about the poll, not himself. The coverage in WHDH is not even close to the in-depth description of Shieh as an individual and his role within the org that the New Yorker provides, which we both believe meets the point of SIGCOV. Vergilreader (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will not vote due to COI. I attended Phillips Academy with Alex, the subject of this article. After his first op-ed in Newsweek, he immediately made clear to his classmates that he was going to create himself a Wikipedia page. He confirmed that he had an account and had also been blocked previously, cussing at the platform when this happened. Part of his motivation was to boost his college application, as Harvard was well-known to be his top choice at the time. Beyond that, he believed it was a resume builder. I cannot confirm for certain what accounts he held, but I’d imagine it is no coincidence there are so many sock puppet allegations on this page.

On the contrary, Alex is an extremely controversial (infamous may be a better word) figure at school, so I would not be surprised if the delete votes on this page are his classmates either.

Overall, beware of your votes and who is voting. There is likely lots of sock or meat puppetry here. Regardless, if the page is kept, I support the COI notice on the article others have asked for. 2607:FB91:D74:12E4:8D59:81BF:6D2B:4D0 (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youthful mistakes potentially, if true. Very possible though in my opinion. Alex, if you read this, you should improve your standards. It does not reflect well. - Indefensible (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well over 40 yrs old at this point and not in high school. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I mostly agree with vergilreader's source assessment and interpretation of sigcov. If users agree that the subject's articles in the Boston Globe aren't independent, I see no difference if the subject happens to be talking to a TV audience on ABC News or WHDH. The introductions the anchor gives is analogous to the short bios given at the top and bottom of the column. I'm also bringing up exclusion. The first point of advertising applies here, although the subject is a person and not an organization. There's already been allegations of the subject potentially causing a COI here, and nom's points about the article having personal details (middle name and exact birthday) not found elsewhere are particularly concerning. The criteria of barely notable individuals is also important, as the comment above this states as well. Lots of potential for defamation, as the subject is barely notable aside from a "single event in their life that thrust them into the newspapers." Touchstone applies too. Looking at Google Trends, the site returns "your search doesn't have enough data to show here" for interest by subregion, related topics, and related queries. An article is likely not warranted based on this data. 2607:FB91:D92:4947:642F:7668:E701:E43C (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - I think it can definitely be improved I think it is just WP:TOOEARLY. Shadow345110 (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:27, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Star Lake (disambiguation)

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

This page began as a WP:TWODABS situation, was WP:PRODed, then de-PRODed and expanded, and was recently trimmed to two items again following a RfD. It's currently a WP:ONEOTHER page, so disambiguation can be better handled with a hatnote. - Eureka Lott 15:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a good point. The Wisconsin list doesn't have any meaningful information about that Lone Star Lake. It might be better to eliminate the hatnote entirely. - Eureka Lott 17:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added three more to the list and sourced them, as well as sourced the original two. I know you want article links, but this at least illustrates that perhaps a dab is worth looking into. Texas being the "Lone Star State" with 254 counties, the possibilities on multiple lakes of that name are pretty good. — Maile (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Clarityfiend. Convert to SIA and add references. What would be the new title? Jay 💬 07:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of lakes named Lone Star Lake: There are several entries in the category similarly named, e.g. List of lakes named Fish Lake. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I don't want to relist this discussion a third time, except for the nominator, it's not clear to me what participants want from this closure among the limited options that are available. If you want to "reclassify" or rewrite this article, you are going to have to voice support for Keeping it first. After it is Kept, then changes can be made through editing but first we have to see support for a Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I would see Keep as an implicit vote for Reclassify and Rename. Jay 💬 05:08, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Jay. That's pretty damn clear. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PharmaCann

PharmaCann (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 business, simple confirmation of existence, per sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 00:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources offered. It helps to link directly to sources that might be SIGCOV rather than to search results.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Southern Maryland Chronicle[45] No (See comment below for deeper ORGIND analysis) Uses quotes representing subject, not completely independent as required by SIRS ? ? ✘ No
CNBC [46] No (See comment below for deeper ORGIND analysis) Uses quotes representing subject, not completely independent as required by SIRS Yes ? ✘ No
Inquirer[47] No Uses quotes representing subject, not completely independent as required by SIRS Yes ? ✘ No
Reuters[48] Yes no comment from subject Yes No only concrete coverage is run-of-the-mill (paperwork for IPO, takeover offers). There is also speculative coverage. Does not meet CORPDEPTH ✘ No
Bloomberg[49] No "The Los Angeles-based cannabis company said Tuesday..." also quote from another non-independent party Yes ? ✘ No
BI, Berke[50] No Quote from non-independent source ~ WP:BI No run of the mill, does not meet CORPDEPTH ✘ No
Addiction Center[51] Yes seems to be secondary independent coverage ? No run of the mill, no CORPDEPTH ✘ No
Denver Post[52] No Quote from rep Yes ? ✘ No
MJBizDaily[53] No email interview with rep ? ? ✘ No
BI, Lee[54] Yes seems to be secondary & independent ~ WP:BI No run of the mill, not much focus on company, doesn't meet CORPDEPTH ✘ No
BizJournals (not sure of correct link so evaluating both [55] and [56] No quotes from rep 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}}.
  • Delete. I find myself agreeing with siroxo's analysis. Thanks for putting together the source assessment table! None of the available sources meet all the standards of WP:NCORP, which means we don't have any sources suitable for establishing notability. The keep !voters really haven't addressed these concerns, and we can't establish notability based on a large volume of unsuitable sources. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 10:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge !vote ... I do think there is insuffient material for a standalone article. What about a section in the MedMen article?
User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a bit in MedMen could make sense, there's a fair amount of non-SIRS coverage there. Does it make sense to leave a redirect? Maybe so, but it does seem a bit strange to redirect from one company to another. But maybe that's my own non-NPOV corporate perspective and a redirect like that is perfectly fine from an encyclopedia-building perspective. —siroχo 04:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Could those arguing to Keep this article counter the source analysis that shows little reliable sourcing in the article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because significant portions are quotes, doesn't mean it isn't independent. Southern Maryland Chronicle and CNBC, for example, also include lots of other third-party information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belichickoverbrady (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those sources meet WP:ORGIND. As a deeper evaluation of those two sources:
  1. The Southern Maryland Chronicle is quite clearly not independent and has clear signs of churnalism. Parts not in quotes include, for example, As the doors of Verilife’s dispensaries open to recreational users, the company’s experienced staff will be ready to provide the highest quality cannabis products and educate consumers on responsible usage. By leveraging their extensive knowledge and expertise, PharmaCann aims to ensure a safe and enjoyable experience for all customers. and PharmaCann’s Maryland Verilife dispensaries have been at the forefront of the state’s medical cannabis industry, catering to patients’ needs for several years. Now, with the expansion into recreational sales, the company is poised to meet the demands of a broader customer base while adhering to stringent regulatory standards.
  2. The CNBC article is filled with information attributed to the CEO of MedMen (Bierman) who were attempting the acquisition at this time as well as referecncing a press release. Most of it is attributed even if not quoted. There is an possibly independent attribution to the Cowen Group of a prediction that is based on the (now failed) acquisition. It's difficult to evaluate the independence of that single sentence, but we do not have to, one statement attributed to another party along with some notes about share prices would not make this a SIRS source.
—siroχo 00:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavan's Lloyds Vidya Niketan

Bhavan's Lloyds Vidya Niketan (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 notable enough for an article, only source I could find making a passing mention to this school is from Hitavada [57],fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:30, 6 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! 03:35, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Allen (4x4 writer)

Jim Allen (4x4 writer) (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:AUTHOR. Tagged as not meeting the notability guideline for biographies since 2018. Schierbecker (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salted and then canned meat product was indefinitely blocked as "an obvious sock" within 70 minutes of their first edit.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 04:10, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD received two editor's support for Deletion but they were both blocked so I'm relisting this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Fundamental disagreement over the quality of sources and whether or not they are sufficient. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Shaw (actor)

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

It's not as abysmally sourced as the article previously deleted at AfD, but the underlying notability issue has not changed since the last AfD a few years ago. Nowhere near meeting WP:GNG, online coverage of the subject is trivial or else not independent. In principle could be redirected to Martin Shaw as {{r from child}}, but there's almost no information about Joe Shaw at that page. signed, Rosguill talk 00:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:IAmHuitzilopochtli
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Joe Shaw Online No This is a primary source. ? Unclear. Probably reliable? Yes ✘ No
Digiguide.tv Yes Not affiliated Joe Shaw. ? No Just a routine database entry. ✘ No
Amazon Yes Not affiliated Joe Shaw. Yes No Just a routine database entry. ✘ No
Rotten Tomatoes Yes Not affiliated Joe Shaw. Yes No Just a routine database entry. ✘ No
OpenDMB Yes Not affiliated Joe Shaw. ? No Just a routine database entry. ✘ No
Gov.uk Yes Not affiliated Joe Shaw. Yes No Just a routine database entry. ✘ No
Rotten Tomatoes Yes Not affiliated Joe Shaw. ? No Just a routine database entry. ✘ No
MyLondon Yes Not affiliated Joe Shaw. Yes A generally credible news outlet No Just a passing mention. ✘ No
The Mirror (https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Dad%27s+fame+spoiled+my+childhood+but+being+an+actor+was+all+I+ever...-a062135390) Yes Not affiliated Joe Shaw. Yes A generally credible news outlet Yes An entire article. ✔ Yes
Brain Sharper Yes Not affiliated Joe Shaw. ? Clickbait website with unclear journalistic standards. No No. Just a brief mention alongside the rest of the cast. ✘ 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}}.

IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 00:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like it took a lot of effort. McFilet O' Fish Fan (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.
    • Seems to meet WP:NACTOR with Rhodes, Bad Girls and Murder Investigation Team.
    • Seems to also meet WP:BASIC. Looking through proquest there are several different articles, including NYT[58], Chicago Tribune[59], etc [60] that have a few sentences of SIGCOV around his work in Rhodes along with his background. Additionally there is another Daily Mirror article from a different author, several years apart year that is an in-depth interview, but interspersed with independent assertions of facts about the subject [61]. Beyond that there's lots of varying coverage of subject's acting in various performances to sufficiently meet WP:BASIC.
—siroχo 03:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unable to access the additional articles at the moment due to a paywall, but I'm concerned by the extent to which the Daily Mirror's coverage holding up the article, as it's of dubious reliability. signed, Rosguill talk 13:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair. WP:BASIC may not be met at least based on the sources we have so far. Borderline. I think NACTOR holds as verifiable. —siroχo 18:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, WP:BASIC must be met. WP:NACTOR cannot be used as a signifier of notability when WP:BASIC is not met. WP:Notability says, referring to addition criteria such as NACTOR, People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Thus, Joe Shaw being an actor in a few shows makes it likely that he might have SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources. But until those sources can be found, we can't justify this article. IAmHuitzilopochtli (talk) 19:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IAmHuitzilopochtli claims BASIC must be met. This is simply not true and is not a policy based argument. See the multitude of BLPs that get by by having a job as seen in afds that invoke wp:prof. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Duffbeerforme, in most cases meeting additional criteria suffices. If there were literally no sources available online or off for someone who met one of the additional criteria for the SNG, that would be a strong case for not including an article about a subject. However, there are clearly a plethora of sources here; we can use the additional criteria as intended, rather than spending hours building up a case for BASIC. —siroχo 15:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per above Salted and then canned meat product (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2A00:23EE:2869:12E0:F2:9CDF:8D26:241C (talk) 21:44, 6 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! 03:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time. No response after the first relisting but I hope more editors will be returning to work on Wikipedia at the end of August and provide some source review this week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:NACTOR with two significant roles and further sourcing has been added since this was listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:18F0:D42:2CF5:82E5:A6F6:A920 (talk) 12:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher R. Swanson

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

Article appears to be written (almost) entirely by user Ctlanning659, presumably Sheriff Swanson's (now former?) executive officer Captain Todd Lanning. Page is lacking Notability and is often written like an advertisement/resume. Essentially none of listed initiatives and events appear notable enough to justify a biographical page. The only potentially notable exception being Sheriff Swanson's one-time participation in the George Floyd Protests, though even this seems to fall under Wikipedia:Notability (People)#People_notable_for_only_one_event and could most definitely be moved into the greater George Floyd Protests article if deemed important enough. A MINOTAUR (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bob van Luijt. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Core (album)

The Core (album) (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)

Album does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Secondary coverage appears to consist of 3 reviews, only one of which (from All About Jazz) exceeds a paragraph in length. StereoFolic (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bob van Luijt: Found no additional material. Artist's notability (assuming he is notable which I find questionable from a brief look at his article) appears to primarily be in the technology field rather than music so the likelihood of finding more on the latter seems unlikely. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the artist is likely notable today due to his involvement with Weaviate, but I do think closer scrutiny is warranted because I have a suspicion some undisclosed WP:COI has occurred in articles relating to him. This AfD comes out of an examination of related pages after I reverted a suspicious IP edit. See also this AfD on another project of the artist's, mostly written by the same account as this one. StereoFolic (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested above. Not sure the musician passes the GNG. The album doesn't. Van Luijt has not been nominated so redirecting is the right course of action, given that there is sufficient coverage for a redirect. gidonb (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
gidonb, I don't think the artist passes notability, the article doesn't cite anything on him climbing the charts or any kind of certification, and there are couple of primary sources like Github, the article mostly cites that he went to school.shelovesneo (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
shelovesneo, between the lines, you could have read that this is also my concern. But I haven't done the research yet to say anything with certainty. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it! Right now: not nominated. gidonb (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you or anyone has the time to research further and determines the artist page warrants nomination, I would be interested to review and weigh in. I'm on the fence at the moment. StereoFolic (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He is the focus of articles in De Telegraaf, FD, and Volkskrant, and passing mentions in the NRC and AD. gidonb (talk) 03:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Limey (band)

AfDs for this article:
Limey (band) (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 Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that this was pre-digital era it's quite likely that a good bit more will be verifiable as sources are discovered to expand the article. —siroχo 06:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Pre-internet press may be hard to find, but meets wikipedia keep criteria by having multiple releases on a major label, although they don't appear to have been particularly successful or noteworthy. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Essentially, there haven't been any really substantive arguments that give a clear consensus, and after three relists, it's time to bring discussion to a close. However, the article is in very poor shape, so no prejudice against renomination if it is not improved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joro the Paver

Joro the Paver (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 BLP article with only 2 (quite unreliable) references. QuickQuokka [⁠talk • contribs] 02:00, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear more policy-based opinions on this article subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't think this is a BLP when all the biographical information that exists is a nickname for an anonymous person but I'm also not impressed with the sources presented. I'd relist this discussion but I think that would demonstrate an opinion on this closure so I'll just leave a comment. Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This would benefit from a source analysis as at the moment we have one editor says the sources are bad and another says they are good. Why?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 02:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 10:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep look, the article as written needs a lot of work and I wouldn't accept it at AfC (I have a rule where I don't "go outside the references" at AfC to determine notability) but after a source search it's either crystal clear this article can be improved through reliable sources, or I'm entirely failing at understanding which Bulgarian sources are reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 12:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked at the sources, I'm skeptical that the subject of this article warrants inclusion under WP:NEVENT / WP:CRIME (both of which require some sense of being a "well-documented historic event" or "enduring historical significance"/""widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources"). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources in the article are horrible. A WP:BEFORE search clears things up, especially in Cyrillic. SportingFlyer T·C 22:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done a search, but the sources I've found have had insufficient quality. Would you mind sharing the high-quality sources that you've seen? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Stuff like this is par for the course in Balkan news print. Dnevnik had four hits but all of those articles were paywalled. It was also at least mentioned in this article. I'm not an expert in Bulgarian media and have only spent about three minutes on this so apologies if these aren't the best sources - they're representative. SportingFlyer T·C 21:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Control(human, data, sound)

Control(human, data, sound) (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 new media performance art piece. Most coverage is primary, and secondary source coverage does not appear to be WP:Sustained. The most significant recognition appears to be as a finalist for the 2015 CREATE festival - it's not even clear whether the work ended up being presented there or not. StereoFolic (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Delgadillo

Melissa Delgadillo (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 beauty pageant contestant. Despite the wrath of sources, there is a lack of WP:SIGCOV here. Article was originally created by an SPI who only ever edited the article for this subject. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Let'srun As far as I can tell, User:Wikifamous has not been subject to an SPI investigation; what do you mean by this? Actualcpscm (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. Thought I saw they had. Will strike that. Let'srun (talk) 10:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:25, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage other than the Miss International win, nothing notable career-wise found. No hits in Gnews, Gsearch goes straight to social media for various individuals, likely not all for this person. Not meeting GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there is more coverage that is not apparent in the article, please provide it in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Oaktree Elttaruuu (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Molly McGrann

Molly McGrann (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 the notability guideline; WP:GNG (WP:AUTHOR). Most sources are primary, with a direct connection to the subject, or exclusively local. A search of WP:RS sources doesn't find much beyond Mattison's personal websites (her author website, her Spotify, etc). The article was created by a WP:SPA. GuardianH (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:05, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the book reviews are fine. Perhaps not as big an author as a Steven King, but we have more for sourcing that some "authors" we see at AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reviews from A. B. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It's stil not apparent to me that a few book reviews justify keeping the article of their author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Löschen. I agree wholeheartedly with the nominator here. There's nothing approaching reliable sources which directly details any aspect of her life except for her few writings, which may or may not be notable themselves. Spin contains a single bare mention of her name and profession, the Skidmore class paper clearly does not meet independence, MOJO (radioheadperu.com) is not an RS, Masthead is her bio page at her employer of the time. The rest of the presented sources are reviews. Note: none of the material asserted in her "biography" section is properly cited and could be deleted by any wikipedian as violating BLP. We owe living subjects better coverage than merely a list of writings. BusterD (talk) 09:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per policy though, it's completely fine for the notability of an article about an author to rest entirely on reviews of their work. Meanwhile, some of those reviews, e.g. [72] do include biographical information and could support that section of the article. Jahaza (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think this meets WP:AUTHOR, if not as robustly as some. Otherwise, as an alternative to deletion, if not kept independently, it looks like Exurbia is independently notable and could be its own article and as very much a third choice, it could redirect to Colin Greenwood, where she's mentioned. --Jahaza (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar. Expanding on my keep reasoning above: WP:AUTHOR says a writer is notable if "The person has created...[a] 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." Clearly McGrann's work has been the primary subject of independent reviews, and I believe it's apparent that her works or collective body of work are well known, as her books have been reviewed in widely circulated general interest periodicals such as The Guardian and The Sydney Morning Herald. Additional reviews can also be found in The Daily Telegraph:
    pburka (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kommentar: Do I understand the keep arguments correctly? We may base notability for a living person entirely on reviews for their work? I assert the collective body of work is neither well-known, nor has the subject produced a single well-known work. There are reviews, I'll concede. But there is not one single presented or found reliable source which directly details the subject of this living person. What shall we say about this subject? A list of works. That's all we may cite. Disagree with me. BusterD (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you look at any of the reviews, because some, like the Oxford Mail one contain a significant amount of material about her background. Jahaza (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, before my first comment on such AfDs, I check sources then perform my own reasonable BEFORE. By my reading, there is nothing in the (tabloid) Oxford Mail review that wouldn't be found on the inside of one of her books' jackets. I disagree with keep asserters' assessment of significant coverage. Most of what I'm seeing, even in reviews, is bare mention of the author. Zero which engages her body of work at all. Routine coverage of individual writings, but nothing which approaches our GNG standard of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources directly detailing the subject sufficiently to keep and maintain an article about a living person on Wikipedia. As a subject, she doesn't seem to meet ANYBIO or CREATIVE. I can't presume such sourcing exists. Without such sourcing, this biography as written is an original work and as such, synthesis. BusterD (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. That's in line with our notability guidelines. We have lots of articles about people without needing to know biographical minutae. The encyclopedia is improved by the inclusion of articles about athletes, even if we know only about their athletic accomplishments; articles about politicians, even if we know only about their exercise of power; and articles about writers and artists, even if know only about their art. We could give these articles more precise names, I guess (Works of Molly McGrann, Athletic career of Fernanda Ribeiro, Medals of James Brady), but it's simpler to treat them as simple biographies. pburka (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Simpler to whom? Certainly not simpler to the subject of a Wikipedia article which poorly or inaccurately represents that person. Certainly not simpler to the administrator who must close such AfDs. This is exactly why BLP policies were created. We must weigh our contributions against a possible harm. I hold that at least one source must be presented or shown to exist which meets the significant coverage direct detailing criteria. We have none. BusterD (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Simple, as in concise. But if you agree that Works of Molly McGrann is a notable topic, then we're just quibbling over the title at this point. pburka (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not quibbling in any way. You are clearly misreading my assertion. I have stated I do not find ANY discussion of her body of work, just a few disconnected reviews of individual works. I do NOT hold her body of work is notable. I do NOT hold a single work is notable. I find this is a subject which lacks reliable sources sufficient for a BLP ("works of..." would still fall under BLP policy). Based on presented and found sources, this is a minor figure without any direct detailing by RS. It's a clear delete. I can't find any reason to keep, and the arguments presented thus far are unpersuasive (and don't include RS supporting). BusterD (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's your position that not even her books are notable? In that case there's no persuading you, but I expect the closing admin will see that your position is contradicted by several SNGs and years of precedent at AfD that authors of two or more notable books are usually notable. pburka (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Osarius 13:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchell Cinque Magee

Ruchell Cinque Magee (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)

Interesting case, not finding much of any coverage of this person beyond activist websites. Almost lack of news sourcing about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to a reference library until the end of the week but google scholar shows mentions in 7 different journals and google books similarly shows numerous results. This article was meant as a stub to be built upon by others. The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 00:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re the sources you provided - very good. I'm not changing my "delete" above, but thanks for the sources. — Maile (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a final time. Right now we're looking at no consensus. Any thoughts on the sources Central and Adams posted?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 00:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Salvino

Jill Salvino (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)

PROMO for an individual with no sourcing in RS found. Article is a brief career summary, not much indicating notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 00:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Between the Shades. There is coverage related to the film in e.g. the NYT Apr. 2019, Los Angeles Blade Jun. 2018, a PFLAG blog announcement quoting the Los Angeles Blade, a review in Film Inquiry July 2017, a review from Video Librarian Apr. 2019, and screening announcements from Newsday 2017, 2018. WP:DIRECTOR#3 includes, 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; there does not appear to be a collective body of work supported by multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or indications that Between the Shades is a "significant or well-known work" - for example, the film does not appear to be widely-covered, or subject to scholarly analysis, or to have won awards or other significant critical attention. I did not find more independent, reliable, and secondary coverage to help support WP:BASIC or other notability for Salvino in searches online and at the Wikipedia Library. Beccaynr (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a final time. Thoughts on the article after Siroxo created Between the Shades?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I am not a fan of these articles but I see a Weak Keep consensus here after 3 relistings so this has to be brought to a close. But those preferring a Merge should take their argument to the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jillian Parry Fry

Jillian Parry Fry (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:GNG. The current sources lack the independent coverage needed to meet WP:SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge and Redirect option vs. Keeping the article as is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now there's no consensus, closely leaning towards keep. Relisting for a final time to hopefully find that consensus. Any thoughts on the suggestion for Merge/Redirecting to Miss Teen USA 2000?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 01:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think the idea of merging into Miss Teen USA 2000 is wise. It seems that many of the winners do have their own page, though the lack of references & notable elements in Miss. Fry's article would make it well suited to a merge. A MINOTAUR (talk) 03:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_August_13&oldid=1170244279"