Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 July 20

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Daniel (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Varzeshi

Taj Varzeshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia:Notability (media). IamMM (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 19:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above
  Salvus 19:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, seems like a historical magazine that passes GNG, and the references are solid enough.--Ortizesp (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article doesn't pass
  WP:GNG. so it should delete. Iamfarzan (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, Historic magazine which at his time had value and importance Mardetanha (talk) 12:29, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I AGREE WITH THE COMMENT ABOVE ME Esaïe Prickett (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No evidence of notability. Digged in deep on GBOOKS and nothing either. Fails
  WP:N Riteboke (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - in line with
  WP:NMEDIA, I could find no evidence of a significant award, serving a historic purpose, being authoritative or influential, being frequently cited or being a significant publication in a niche market (it perhaps comes close to fulfilling the last one) but due to the complete lack of available sourcing, it's hard to support a keep argument and, ultimately fails GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Anan Foundation

Anan Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable NGO started in 2020 that fails to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gamjaal

Gamjaal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable film, appears to fail

PROD removed by creator, with the following note left on my talk page: "I have sourced all the articles related to that to movie,despite these why have you asked to delete the page." As I have stated, only one citation in the article and it does nothing to establish notability based on Wikipedia guidelines. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG and NFILM. Kolma8 (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: horrid page Esaïe Prickett (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unsourced article. I think in this case the nominator should have moved it to draftspace to give the author more time to add sources if any. Since it's here already and from sources I've seen from search, it'll definitely not pass
  WP:NFILM. Riteboke (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 find the 'delete' arguments to be far stronger regarding our policies on inclusion, notwithstanding any potential issues regarding sockpuppetry etc. Daniel (talk) 02:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Dair SC

Al-Dair SC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 21:40, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did not understand where the problem is in the article. Is writing an article about a club that plays in the third division prohibited? Can you explain more? Saimari (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I read the topic in the link you are referring to, and I did not understand what the error was in the article, where exactly is the error, please explain that. Saimari (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:INDISCRIMINATE states: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Just because the club exists, doesn't mean it merits a Wikipedia article. There is barely anything to be said of the team. Not even database websites (which on their own aren't enough to confer notability) have the club. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Two sources were mentioned in the article, the first includes respected Iraqi clubs, and the year of its establishment, including this club, and the second source represents a press article on a well-known website about the preparations of this club in the second division. The real problem is the poor press coverage of the first and second divisions in Iraq, not the club's reputation. Anyway, I don't see a good reason to delete the article.Saimari (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, we each have our own opinion. This is why I opened a discussion for deletion; other users will also voice their opinions based on the comments above. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 23:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Saimari are there any more sources available? At the moment, nothing offered shows significant coverage. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this harm the admissibility of the article? I previously presented that there is a weakness in the news coverage of the first and second divisions clubs in Iraq, to the extent that it is called in Iraq (Dawri Al-Mazalim) meaning: The oppresseds league, because the press in Iraq does not care about this leagues, and does not report any news about it. But most of those clubs are old and some were Premier League champions in previous years. I think that having two sources in the article is sufficient for now, and that other people can cooperate to develop the article in the future. Saimari (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Saimari: The issue is that it doesn't seem that there is any room for improvement for the future. For the clubs currently in the Iraqi 3rd tier who have once played in the 1st tier, there is not problem. Al-Dair specifically doesn't seem to have ever participated in the first division. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 16:54, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: Why do you rule this out, Newroz was a third-tier club two years ago and was not even known, but the team this season was promoted to the Premier League (first-tier), and the article that wrote year ago here was a very small article with only three sources and was accepted, and I developed it a few days ago, see it here. Saimari (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 16:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - whilst I appreciate that there are reasons why significant coverage doesn't exist, unfortunately, without coverage, there shouldn't be an article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment holy moly ive never seen a page this short Esaïe Prickett (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not delete I see that Saimari gave good reasons not to delete the article. Moody2019 (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GNG fail. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not delete There are many articles in Wikipedia that have been accepted in this way, and the reasons given by Saimary are acceptable, and his discussion is logical. Admosb (talk) 13:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not delete - the reasons he mentioned are reasonable, the article can be developed later instead of being deleted. Sambein (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Developed with which sources? If there are sources showing notability, please share Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Saimari began developing the article, and adding sources. I think that any article can be developed if we cooperate on this and think of building instead of demolishing. Sambein (talk) 23:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added are two Facebook posts and a local Basra match report. None of this establishes notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not local match in Basra, but an official match in the Iraq second division. Sambein (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly says on several occasions that it's the Basra league and has no mention of being

Iraq Division One, which is the 2nd tier in Iraq. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

You should know that the second division league has several stages, the first stage is a local stage, then the top teams from each group qualify to play in the final stage in the qualifying round. Sambein (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The club is not notable and there is barely any coverage, and definetely not enough significant coverage. --SuperJew (talk) 08:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - closing admin may wish to note that there is an investigation taking place regarding some of the votes in this discussion, which itself has been disrupted once already. The result of that investigation may well affect the consensus of this AfD. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:25, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of fictional characters named Taylor

List of fictional characters named Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Is this a joke? Unencyclopedic list of characters that happen to share an element of their name. We don't have a list of every fictional "Bill", nor should we.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 21:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG; see
  WP:LISTPEOPLE ... has to meet notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as a
  WP:NLIST: unsurprisingly, the topic of "fictional characters named Taylor" has not been discussed in depth by reliable sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for violating
  WP:NLIST. Nobody in their right mind has compiled another such list before.Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Come to think of it, I myself have added to sublists in dab and name pages (though I had not seen standalone lists for fictional characters alone). Then again, I've never claimed to be in my right mind. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge some entries to Taylor (given name) - which already has a fictional characters section - and either merge List of people with surname Taylor and the rest of this list's entries to Taylor (surname) or merge the remaining entries to List of people with surname Taylor. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This page was created to avoid cluttering the disambiguation page Taylor (with a list of fictional characters with surname Taylor), and Taylor (given name). The list of fictional characters with surname Taylor shouldn't reallu go at List of people with surname Taylor because fictional characters aren't people. If this list is deleted, those lists should be restored to those pages. This, in my view, would not be an improvement. We do actually have very many "unencyclopedic" lists of fictional characters that happen to share an element of their name, but they're usually found embedded in disambiguation pages and in anthroponymy articles. See, for example: List of people with surname Smith#Fictional Smiths, List of people with surname Jones#Fictional characters, Tom#Characters; Dick (nickname)#Fictional characters; and Harry (given name)#Fictional characters. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classic

talk) 07:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Sometimes it's better to scrape all the little piles of crap into one place into one steaming pile of crap. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per
  WP:PARTIALMATCH._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  WP:SPLIT. Daranios (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment what is that page? Esaïe Prickett (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is listcruft where most of the entries are very minor.17:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: How do you come to this conclusion, given that many entries have blue links, leading either to their own article or own section within a summary article? Daranios (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge into Taylor (given name). Only preserve characters with own articles, i.e. notable ones - no need to link to our long lists of characters (like List of The Simpsons characters). Wikinights (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AW Awards

AW Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A non-notable pornography industry award. Most of the references are to obvious press releases in industry trade publications; the remainder are to the websites of award recipients or even to Wikipedia articles. Cheers, gnu57 21:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 21:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Delete: (from Discussion: RfC Closed 25 March 2019 Remove.) "significant awards" do not correlate to the subjects meeting WP:BASIC, to which PORNBIO is a supplement. We have WP:ENT and this is sufficient. PORNBIO is gone for good; this does not meet WP:BASIC. Off to the slaughterhouse. --Whiteguru (talk) 21:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable award that fails to have
  WP:SIGCOV. Riteboke (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tom Sewell (artist)

Tom Sewell (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The three sources appear to be photo credits rather than significant coverage. The actual content of the article is unsourced, but appears to have been copied from https://www.tomsewell.com/tom Note: there is a British artist with the same name. That's a different person. Vexations (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lottie Moss

Lottie Moss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

By my assessment, subject of the article doesn't pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Just from poking around for a few minutes, looks like she meets
  WP:RSPSOURCES), such as The Cut or The Telegraph Fashion. She apparently also had a feature in Teen Vogue, as an example of the reliable coverage that exists about her. Suriname0 (talk) 17:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep - is in national newspapers a lot, although the overwhelming majority of it is just daily updates on what she's wearing and what she's posting on social media from Daily Mail and The Sun. There is some coverage in The Independent and The Telegraph but I couldn't find any significant coverage in the BBC or The Guardian. I did search Spanish, French and German newspapers and there were hits although all of it was related to her OnlyFans. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article just needs to be expanded beyond being the half sister of Kate Moss. Sources are present though some are gossips. Riteboke (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 23:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BioVallée

BioVallée (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable, no sources Seacactus 13 (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails
  WP:RS. Riteboke (talk) 08:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 debate ultimately boiled down to whether this fits our criteria for encyclopedic content or not. The consensus in this debate is that the list does not meet this criteria. Daniel (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of fugitives from justice who are no longer sought

List of fugitives from justice who are no longer sought (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An absurd, non-encyclopedic list of people who, at one time, were fugitives, but now are not, either because they were caught or because they died hundreds of years ago (although apparently this never happened in the history of the human race before 1554, according to this list). I do enjoy how the way the list is structured, it implies that Josef Mengele was fleeing from Nazi Germany, that's fun. And also how like 80% of the list is Americans from the last 150 years or so. Oddly, apparently nobody anywhere on earth was a fugitive who is no longer being sought between 1926 and 1929, the jailers must've been really on top of their game for those three years. This is just ridiculous, It's embarrassing to even know it is hosted here.

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 19:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 19:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep for this reasons that I left on the articles talk page. This article has been a HUGE success! Davidgoodheart (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Define "huge success" please. I'm certainly not seeing one here. An incomplete list of every person who was ever wanted by law enforcement, but now is not is not an encyclopedia topic. Frankly your attitude abut this almost comes across as deliberate trolling.

talk) 20:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Beeblebrox: Check out page views as that is what I meant. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Davidgoodheart:, please indent your replies. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The talk page comments seem to imply that this list is overly broad and vaguely defined, and based on most of these people no longer being sought due to death, I'm inclined to agree with the former. There may be thousands of notable criminals like that. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: Check out page views as that is what I meant. Davidgoodheart (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews have spiked because this page is being mocked as an example of a terrible Wikipedia article on an external criticism site. I would also assume that whoever closes this discussion would know perfectly well that pageview counts are in no way a valid argument to keep an article.

talk) 20:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

What external site would that be? It's not prominent enough to show up on the first few pages of google, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're searching on, but I found the discussion I assume Beeblebrox is referencing as the first hit on a search for "list of fugitives" "crap article". That's hardly the first time issues with this particular page have been raised; if you want an on-wiki example,

Iridescent 06:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I was searching without crap article which seems to be the parlance for that very nasty forum that has been attacking the editor concerned with this article including suppositions of mental health which would have resulted in a block on wikipedia. Furthermore the topic wasn't raised there until 18 July and yet this article had monthly page views of 47,000 back in March so the link to page views is tenuous, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article is well-referenced. I 'do' believe the article needs a little pruning to remove the "vague" insertions, and can hold said vague insertions in the berth (chronologically "to add" with tomorrow's news). As stands, it can encourage insertions of non-notable instances. To summarize, the vast majority of entries need splicing into their own articles/subtopic articles if the page as stands isn't deemed significant enough (this is my opinion of course). An invaluable collection of references to the topic though.--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing is not the issue here. The issue is that this is a list that is basically "anyone on earth who was ever wanted for any reason, and now is not wanted, also for any reason." That is a hopelessly vague, unencyclopedic structure for a list article (as you seem to acknowledge). I don't see why splitting it further makes any sense as the individual entries already have their own articles.

talk) 20:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure. I agree. I can see either side of the argument. I do see the list as a potentially invaluable one. Is this a list more important?--Kieronoldham (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are no reliable sources that talk about fugitives who are no longer sought as a defined group. This concept is the creation of a Wikipedia editor. What connects fugitives from the 1500s with 21st century fugitives? Nothing. We already have "fugitive" categories, but the "no longer sought" qualifier is just plain silly and unencyclopedic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I initially thought this would be fugitives who were exonerated (which might be worthy; I'm looking at you
  WP:NLIST applies. List of fugitives from justice who disappeared is good enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - very useful list. Could need some work though. Byt AfD is no clean-up service. Sourced as well.BabbaQ (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was stealth-canvassed by the article creator

talk) 18:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

and the nominator advertised this AfD at the aforementioned forum where user Stanistani is an active admin who commented on the thread and followed up with a delete vote here - off-wiki canvassing in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was already under discussion there and I merely mentioned that I had gone ahead an nominated it for deletion. Really not the same thing as informing one specific editor with no previous connection to the article, but who is apparently sympathetic.

talk) 18:30, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete This article is useless, impossible to keep current, and has deficiencies in grammar and spelling. →StaniStani 08:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Moderate Keep. I'm not a fan of lists, as tagging/categorising can often be better, but some lists can be useful. The fact that we have a "fugitive" category militates against this list, but in its favour is the fact that this list is trying to provide information on the shared (and notable) concept of "fugitive, but got away with it". Other commenters have pointed out that there are inconsistencies in how the people listed here are "no longer sought", and claim that this is a weakness of this list; actually, I think it's a strength, and perhaps the most useful thing about this page: what we have here is a view of how wide the possibilities for "no longer sought" can be. Some concepts are well-explained by definitions, but others require ostension, and this list helps by showing how "no longer sought" can come about. RomanSpa (talk) 11:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The distinction between this and the "disappeared" is murky, since presumably after a hundred years or even less they stop trying to capture everyone. But if it makes sense to divide them up by one outcome, it makes sense to do so for the whole range of outcomes, and conversely, if it makes sense to lump some of them together, it makes sense to lump them all together and put in a column for the outcome. This particular grouping is arbitrary. Mangoe (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This doesn't have clear
  selection criteria. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and refine as I suggested on the talk page to fugitives who were sought for five or more years while they were / are alive or maybe three years if five is too restrictive. This article is on my watchlist so I would have commented anyway. Also regarding page views it's interesting that despite being linked at the top of every discussion we are supposed to studiously ignore them and yet when portals were discussed all the deletionists trotted out the page views, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As Beeblebrox has pointed out, the higher-than-expected page views are because this is one of the standard pages used by critics as an example of Wikipedia at its worst, not because there's a flood of interest in the topic. ‑ 
  Iridescent 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That forum did not discuss this article until July 18 yet it had page views of 47,000 for last March, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've previously used this pseudoarticle as an example of the worst of Wikipedia, and haven't seen anything to change my opinion. This isn't a coherent list of any kind—it's a completely arbitrary selection of randomly chosen criminals. "Fugitive from justice who is no longer sought" as used on this article describes literally every criminal who wasn't arrested at the scene of the crime but was subsequently detained. Even if we were to restrict it only to those people with existing Wikipedia articles, we're talking hundreds of thousands of entries before it would even come close to completeness, and without at least trying for completeness it's just a piece of original research. ‑ 
  Iridescent 06:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This list doesn't have clear selection criteria.
  talk page 08:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. How else would readers know that fugitives who died in previous centuries are not still being pursued for posthumous prosecution? Oops, I meant delete due to lack of notabilty for the list as a topic, lack of clear inclusion criteria, and the general absurdity of a list that mixes people who have been captured, people who were killed by authorities, people who died of old age while still on the lam, etc. "It's useful" is a reasonable keep defense for some functional pages (templates, for example), but not for articles. --RL0919 (talk) 11:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Impossibly vague criteria and does not make
  LISTCRIT. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete One if the worst examples of a list on Wikipedia, and unsalvageable. No evidence of any sources discussing "fugitives who have evaded justice and no longer being sought" in particular, and the criteria is so vague as to be meaningless. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There are plenty of sources discussing fugitives which is obviously a notable topic, this is just a reduction of that topic. Also an entry qualification added that a fugitive would have to have been on the run for 5 years while alive would trim the entries down, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The subject of fugitives is notable, which is why the Fugitive article exists, as well as Category:Fugitives. This list is about a poorly defined subset of fugitives, for which no evidence of notability has been provided. --RL0919 (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I probably should have cited

  talk) 02:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete Non-encyclopedic list with extremely vague criteria of inclusion, borderlining on original research.--Darwinek (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very much unencyclopedic, shouldn't have even been created in the first place. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The relevant PAG is
  WP:LISTN. So the question is whether "fugitives from justice who are no longer sought" is a categorisation that exists in reliable sources. Googling "fugitives from justice who are no longer sought" only brings up Wikipedia as a source, so my current answer to that question is no, but am happy to change my mind if someone finds me a source that shows this grouping is actually something that exists outside the imagination of Wikipedia editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  That having been said, it is well sourced, meets our core content policies, and the pageviews suggests it provides purpose to our readers, so a reasonable argument can be made to disregard the list notability guideline in this case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on page view statistics I'd rather not go here, but since people keep holding up page views as evidence I feel I must. Page views do not reflect the number of unique visitors, only how many times the page was viewed in total. So, take July 4 for example. The page's primary author made over forty edits, presumably viewing the page many times while doing so. I'm not suggesting there is deliberate inflation of page views here, merely that it is not a trustworthy metric. Per
  talk) 19:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I should also like to point out that if you search for "list of fugitives" in Google, it gives List of fugitives from justice who disappeared, and then the page being discussed. Since there is no overall list of fugitives, people don't really have any other pages to look at. Mangoe (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I searched for "list of fugitives" on Google, I'd be expecting pages from Interpol and national law enforcement agencies, not Wikipedia. Prioritizing lists of people who are not actively sought fugitives seems counterproductive. (Not that what Google does should be much of our concern.) --RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete stumbled upon this page while reading about Idi Amin and while the author seems to have invested much time and effort into this list, it also seems absurdly non-encyclopedic to me. Absolutely concur with what most in the Delete camp have been saying. Maybe a standalone article should exist for fugitives who managed to evade justice for so long that authorities just gave up looking for them, but this list seems to cater for criminals who were explicitly caught or killed, which I suppose is the fate of a vast majority of fugitives. Kingoflettuce (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E. Wicks

Charles E. Wicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I feel somewhat bad putting this up for AfD as the edit history indicates this page was made and then later prepared into an obituary page by the individuals son. I originally put this up for AfD for appearing to not pass

Arguments for WP:PROF Non-notability

1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.

• No. There is some confoundation here as there is another Charles E. Wicks^[1] who seems to be involved with the US geological survey who would pass WP:PROF (if he is also a professor) on this measure. However, for Charles E. Wicks the chemist^[2] he does not come close to meeting criteria 1 only having an h-score of 4 and 6 publications according to scopus, and google scholar backs this up. Although, he does have one book publication that has been cited over 700 times,^[3] but I do not believe a single book (though highly cited) is quite enough to pass C1, more so because the book is effectively a collection of physical properties of compounds. I do wonder if it's possible he does have more publications as it is stated he was involved in research for 37 years. Since most of this occured from the 60's onward I do wonder if they could be cataloged poorly.

2.The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.

• No. He has won awards according to an old faculty page, but they all appear to be internal to oregon state university^[4] and thus don't meet this criteria. I wasn't able to find any other awards.

3. The person has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

• No. No evidence of this that was elected to a major society.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.

• No. Does not seem to be the case, which would be expected due to his low publication count.

5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.

• No. He was department chair for 17 years, but I couldn't find any mentions of this being a named chair. So, close, but not quite.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.

• No. He seems to have only stayed in the chemical engineering department through his career and did not branch out.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.

• No. This does not seem to be the case. Though he seems really loved by his family and was really valued by the community in which he lived.^[5] However, this is the only mention of it in an obituary and it didn't seem to get news coverage. It, rather sadly doesn't count for criteria 7.

8. The person has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.

• No. I did not see anything about him being an editor.

Other Comments

Honestly, I was hoping I could find something to save this page as... well idk this just weirdly pulled on my heart strings as the page was curated by his son. But, I just couldn't find anything notable both when I put up the PROD and now when I did a second and deeper dive.

Please share your thoughts, thanks! --Tautomers_{(T C)} 01:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nomination takes a lot of time and words to explain that the nominator doesn't really want to delete this page. And notice that all this text has resulted in the creation of another page to hold this discussion. By convention, we will not delete this discussion page, which will be kept visible in perpetuity. So, why then are we considering deleting the page in question, which is more encyclopedic, while retaining the discussion page which is just
  if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it
  ". And the rule in question is, in any case, just a guideline which explicitly says that exceptions are possible.

For another recent, similar case, see

WP:ATD, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Let's do that instead then. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment Thanks Andrew for sharing a recent example about a similar article, that's helpful to compare to as a reference point. I agree that that article was good to be kept because it not only met PROF standards, he also left a strong impact which was notified in multiple obituaries signifying his notability. With this article though, I did not see as extensive coverage, nor notability on PROF standards and as such I keep my vote as delete. It's great that you spruced up the article, but it still fails notability in my view, per my initial arguments. Additionally, while I feel bad about this article being deleted, I also do still think it should be deleted. Those two feelings can and do co-exist. I do not think the rules require us to delete the article. This is ultimately a consensus process, and one I have come to respect. If it is found worthy of being kept that will be great too. I'll be satisfied with whatever the consensus is. As a side note, I hope that you will address my concerns that I outlined on your talk page regarding approach to deprodding when you have the time, as I assume you have seen it based on your reply here. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 19:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Andrew and per nom's own statement "I do not think the rules require us to delete the article". Dr. Universe (talk) 06:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please don't mischaracterize what I say. While rules do not require articles to be deleted, I do still think this article should be deleted, per the analyses I have given and in respect information others have brought forward. If reasoning/evidence comes to light that causes my opinion to change, I'll update my vote in a comment accordingly. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 21:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The case of Theodore Cohen is hardly comparable. He was a distinguished chemist known his research, not for compiling other people's work into a book. (Having said that, I do wonder at the justification for putting a picture of Isaac Asimov in his article. Asimov was indeed very famous, but not for the trivial science that he published.) 700 citations for such a compilation is not particularly impressive. A more appropriate comparison is with Edwin C. Webb, who does not have a Wikiparticle, despite having been vice-chancellor (head) of a major Australian university in addition to his distinction as a scientist. The last (1992) printed version of Enzyme Nomenclature now has 441 citations, and this count ignores the many citations to the earlier editions. Likewise, his classic book Enzymes with Malcolm Dixon has accumulated too many citations to count, but probably more than 10000. Athel cb (talk) 08:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles are not created by deletion; see
  WP:WAX Andrew🐉(talk) 13:20, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Well that's great; thank you. You created it today, after I wrote the above, so maybe my comment had a useful effect. However, it hardly affects the point, which is that 700 citations to a book published in 1963 is not very impressive (better than many, certainly, but nothing special). Athel cb (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
  talk) 18:53, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. If you feel bad putting the article up for deletion, and it pulls on your heart strings, let's just keep it.
  talk) 22:34, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• weak keep fails
  WP:NPROF#4 with the textbooks he authored. Another issue is the lack of any strong RS. --hroest 21:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Does not pass Academic notability guideline 1. His work is not majorly impactful in his field of study.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:NPROF#4 as I advance above? --hroest 18:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Weak keep. While there's little sign of
  WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep: Worthy academic, undoubtedly. Give more leeway to the historical over the currently working. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above Sahaib (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes Nprof c4 barely.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Art Is Kool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Unreferenced stub about an art tv programme. A

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 02:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_Philippine_television_shows#Arts_and_culture where it is mentioned. --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per norminator. Riteboke (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

As there was policy-backing for both sides, including consideration of each other's reasoning, ultimately it came down to a numbers game, with a clear outcome for deletion Nosebagbear (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sham Idress

Sham Idress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

References do not show

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Move to Sham Idrees (corrected spelling of his name), As sham idrees clearly comply with
  WP:GNG
  . Visit following links to look at significant coverage from National Newspapers & TV channels of Pakistan:

1. https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1103058/
2. https://dailytimes.com.pk/237888/why-is-ducky-bhai-trying-to-bring-down-sham-idrees-and-froggy/
3. https://tribune.com.pk/story/2266498/sham-idrees-introduces-daughter-from-a-previous-marriage
4. https://dailyausaf.com/article/showbiz-201905-17533.html
5. https://www.samaa.tv/entertainment/2019/05/shaam-idrees-says-wife-froggy-attacked-by-karachi-mob/
6. https://www.thenews.com.pk/latest/467888-who-are-sham-idrees-queen-froggy
7. https://gulfnews.com/photos/entertainment/pakistan-origin-popular-you-tubers-sham-idrees-and-wife-seher-celebrate-birth-of-baby-girl-1.1583675824298?slide=7
8. https://www.bolnews.com/entertainment/2020/10/sham-idrees-extends-thankfulness-to-fans-family-for-birthday-wishes
9. https://www.dawnnews.tv/news/1076819/
10. https://dailypakistan.pk/entertainment/71681/

He also meets 2nd Point of

The available references do not show the notability of the subject. The references are either Gossip articles or PR/announcements and not from

WP:RS that is independent of the subject. GermanKity (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 08:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment Wikipedia community decides which newspapers and sources are

WP:RS and not an individual alone from among us. Individuals, including me, are free to give their views or choose to make sweeping statements here. Like I said before in my comments, I consider most of the above listed sources as Reliable Sources. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep I have noticed this article has been further improved by the article creator
  WP:GNG now. Also I noticed SharqHabib above has already 'Moved this page' to the correct name spelling of the article title. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep as per above comments, seems to pass
  WP:GNG. But the formatting on the references needs to be improved. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 15:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the gossip-rags listed above are definitely NOT RS. GenQuest ^"scribble" 20:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly passes gng as all those refs are reliable sources from pakistan Surya^{beej   ⋠talk⋡} 09:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GEN and ENT. Please also refer to
  independent reliable sources. Current sources are not enough to establish notability. They're only gossips, discussing family celebrations, road accidents, feud between Youtubers etc. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as per Ngrewal1- He is notable among Indians and Pakistani. Most of mentioned sourced in the page are considered reliable. Hasan (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is a quite controversial deletion discussion on whether the cited sources are reliable or not. I still believe those are reliable third party news references, with most being improved recently by the initial creator. And it also seems to meet the ENT# point 2 as the person has achieved huge popularity among Indians and Pakistanis both online and offline. In other words, I find Ngrewal1's explanation plausible and agree with them. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 14:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails
  independent reliable sources. Also this has been deleted before via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sham Idrees (2nd nomination) so I think this discussion should be updated as 3rd nomination since the page name was already updated. Regards. Kinngjatt (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hello

talk) 13:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS for future reference. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 11:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

‘’’delete’’’ client fails GNG.2A04:4A43:497F:B20E:F97E:192:BC27:51B5 (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, or move to draft if a case can be made that substantial reliable sources exist that could be added to the article. A YouTube prankster whose coverage derives from a feud with another non-notable YouTuber. BD2412 T 05:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sham Idrees gained popularity after having his feud with a YouTuber. I remember Sham used to be known in the YouTube community of Pakistan, all these sources of Sham are of the past, but if you talk about 2020 and 2021, Sham has become like an irrelevant person in Pakistan now, each of his video can't even get a million views, so the final thing is Sham is no more well-known in Pakistan, there won't even be a single source about Sham in 2021. RaziNaama (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 05:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@RaziNaama: It doesn't matter here. You admitted that he was once popular. Even if popularity decreases if he's once known for his works, he will be still considered notable on Wikipedia. And you have joined Wikipedia 12 days ago, and it seems surprising that you are participating in AFD discussion. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 14:22, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! There is indeed a sockpuppet investigation on you. — A.A Prinon  ^{Leave a dialogue} 14:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Please note that

talk) 12:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per nom. This isn't about reliability of sources. Coverage is not in-depth. Sources are not good content-wise ("Pakistan origin popular You tubers Sham Idrees and wife Seher celebrate birth of baby girl" et cetera). — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, lacks in-depth coverage to meet
  WP:NBIO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. The sources listed above by Ngrewal1 are not in-depth and do not rise to the level of significance required by
  WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 22:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: While the discussion happening here may be illuminating, if no rough consensus can be reached, the article by default will be kept. An article can't stay in AfD forever, and this one has already been discussed more than 5x longer than AfD discussions are meant to last. Dr. Universe (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment —
  talk) 14:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment a relist after a preceding relist followed by 4:0 !votes is very problematic. An administrator needs to take a careful look at this discussion, potentially remove some content (such as the relist comment and the subsequent bias-inducing and procedurally false comment by the relister), and assess viability of any further discussion after it was adulterated by the tendentious relist. See Wikipedia:Relisting can be abusive — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alalch Emis: There was a 17 (!!!) day gap between the last relist and mine. I might have closed the AfD as a "delete" if I could, but delete decisions require an admin, so I relisted. What else was supposed to be done? Just let it continue going for far beyond the usual lifetime of an AfD discussion, while being neglected by admins who are supposed to be making close decisions on the backlog of AfD discussions (especially for cases where non-admins can't close it because the decision isn't unanimous enough or the consensus is leaning towards delete)? Your uses of the words "adulterated" and "tendentious" are inappropriate here and come across far too confrontational. I relisted because this discussion has been going on for more than 5x the intended lifetime of an AfD discussion and a decision now needs to be made. This has nothing to do with "adultery" or "tendentiousness". Please just assume a bit of good faith for editors that are just trying to help the Wikipedia project by working on reducing the size of the backlog. Dr. Universe (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per
  talk) 20:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Per Nominator Riteboke (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was a fairly complicated discussion that endeavoured to use a test case AfD and apply to a batch.

The delete !votes were all clear-cut and well-formed, indicating that individual ceremonies were not well enough sourced (there was a marginal case over the 37th - had I come down in favour of delete, that one would have remained no-consensus) and could not inherit notability from the overarching notable nature of the awards.

The Keep !votes did not generally rebut the sourcing argument - specific instances were contested, but there wasn't a general effort to show that independent sourcing to meet NEVENT/GNG for each.

Instead the reasoning was more that as the relevant details couldn't all be included in the main article, splitting them off like this was legitimate and a fair use of PRIMARY. Various call-outs to equivalent cases was carried out by both keep and delete supporters.

In general I found the Keep policy basis less strong than that of those advocating Deletion, but not non-existent. Had it been a single article I may have just found in favour of deletion, but traditionally batch submissions need to be fairly clear-cut to demonstrate cause for deletion.

Should a general village pump discussion indicate that NOTINHERITED clearly does apply to things such as particular awards ceremonies, seasons etc, then I will overturn my close to delete. Alternatively, this close can be raised at DRV without prior discussion with myself (though if there's something unclear by all means reach out), if it is felt that it was assessed with a misapplied consideration of underlying policy Nosebagbear (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum (Apologies, edit-conflict meant I had to restart) - there was also consideration of a merge to a single list article, which while it clearly did not represent a consensus, was also not particularly opposed. A merge discussion can be held in the regular fashion. Nosebagbear (talk)

38th Young Artist Awards

This AfD is currently being closed by me. Please do not make further edits to it at this time Nosebagbear (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC) [reply]

38th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages for the reasons discussed below:

31st Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

32nd Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

33rd Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

34th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

35th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

36th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

37th Young Artist Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following the

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are articles for every year stretching back to the first one, why are the yearly lists from the 31st onward not notable, but 1 through 30 are? Donaldd23 (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Donaldd23: I figured it was better to discuss these articles in chunks rather than deleting all of them at once. I'm planning to list the other ceremonies at AfD once this discussion is finished – should I just include those ceremonies here? I'm not super familiar with how AfDs work, so I don't know which would be better. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chunks seem like a fairly good idea. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the awards are notable then the results of those awards should be listed and to do so needs splitting from the parent article. Also human interest stories regarding receiving the awards are a sign of their notability. Regarding the close on the 39th Awards am considering a deletion review, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify why I think human-interest stories are irrelevant to notability, I'm basing this off of
    WP:INHERITED to note why the existence of the page Young Artist Award does not justify this: "In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child 'tree') does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities." RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

WP:ROUTINE is for run of the mill announcements which I would suggest does not cover an annual, national level award from an awards ceremony that you describe as notable. The details of the awards cannot be subtracted from the notability of the awards in my view, so these essentially split articles should be kept, in my view, Atlantic306 (talk

)

So are you suggesting that human-interest stories alone prove notability? That is a pretty low bar for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is rarely a guideline that exactly corresponds to a given situation, so I was aiming to show with these guidelines that human-interest stories do not appear to be a good indicator of notability.

WP:ROUTINE indicates the coverage is not significant; hence, I think it's fair to say that human-interest stories fail to establish notability on their own. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

My main point is that as the awards are notable as you confirm then the results of those awards are necessary and important information that the reader would expect to see and that there is no valid reason at all for deletion. I will do a source-search tomorrow, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the disconnect we're having is that we have different perceptions of "necessary and important information". Here's my perspective on it:

I work on a lot of TV articles. For a TV show that has met the notability guidelines, it is generally acceptable to include a list of episodes (or, if the list of episodes would be too long to fit in the main page, a stand-alone list for the episodes). Listing the individual episodes, even if they don't have sources specifically about them, is okay. However, taking the step to create stand-alone articles for individual episodes requires that the episodes have their own coverage. In rare cases, I think it would be okay to allow a few episodes to slip in without significant coverage simply to complete the set, but only if the vast majority of the other episodes in the series have significant coverage.

Using this analogy here, I would argue that list of ceremony dates, locations, etc. in the main article is the same as the list of episodes in a TV series article. The ceremonies may not be individually notable, but it's worthwhile context. Creating year-by-year articles is akin to creating individual episode articles; at that point, the ceremonies require significant, independent coverage, which I have not seen. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep To delete the results of an award that is judged notable is against the best interests of Wikipedia. Are the articles for yearly Academy Awards, Emmys, Golden Globes, etc not notable either? Surely we agree that the Academy Awards are notable, but is, say, the 13th Academy Awards notable on its own? If we all agree an award is notable, then the ceremonies/winners are also notable and since that information cannot feasibly fit on the parent page that covers the awards as a whole, we have individual pages for each award. The Young Artist Award is no different. And, I agree with Atlantic306 that the 39th ceremony that was deleted should have a deletion review. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is those ceremonies have sources written specifically about them. To use your example of the 13th Academy Awards, I found a New York Times article, a Variety article, and an article from the FDR Presidential Library, to name a few. (Some of those are behind paywalls, but they are still legitimate sources.) I have yet to see comparable coverage of the individual ceremonies for the Young Artist Awards. To me, saying that the mere existence of an award justifies an article about every ceremony is comparable to saying that the presence of a notable sports team means every one of the team's seasons deserves an article, or the existence of a TV show justifies an article about every episode. There are teams that are notable enough for season-by-season coverage, and shows that justify episode-by-episode articles, but that is because there are secondary sources specifically about those topics, not just because the parent topic is notable. Likewise, there are awards that deserve articles for individual ceremonies, and there are those that do not. To me, this clearly falls in the latter category. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Update only found two pieces with significant coverage coverage of the 37th Young Artists Awards here and here, minor coverage here,here, and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, the first two sources refer to the same year but the remaining sources refer to different years. And the LA Times article is more about the awards as a whole; the references to the 37th ceremony are just because that's when the article was written. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per closing comment in
  WP:NOTINHERITED. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "I'm not convinced by the arguments presented by the !keeps. Perhaps a redireect is warrant. I'm deleting per nom and per
    talk) 08:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete I just went through the main article and found many dead links. Nonetheless, the awards may be just barely notable, but I like the argument above that the individual ceremonies, having almost zero coverage, do not warrant standalone articles. The list of ceremonies in the main article seems to be a good compromise. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The list of ceremonies in the main article seems to be a good compromise." It is not a copromise, it's a wipe-out of nominations. If the individual ceremonies are deleted, then the info about nominations and awards should be transferred to the main article. Which then would make it large enough for it to be separated into other articles. I view many articles as a technical and trivial thing of dividing article.
    talk) 08:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Why would the list of nominations have to be moved to the main article? If it's not notable information, it shouldn't be included. That's the entire point of having a deletion discussion – to figure out if information should or should not be included. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "If it's not notable information, it shouldn't be included" - but I mentioned the examples of this information cited in sources. Which supports notion that it is notable information. If Jaden Smith's nominations mentioned include these Awards, that would indicate it is notable information.
        talk) 16:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • The problem that I see is that you're taking one piece of notable information (from an unreliable source, assuming you're discussing the Republic TV article from below) and using it to justify an entire article's worth of non-notable information. I would argue that Smith's award could merit recognition on a page about Smith, especially since the Young Artist Awards website might serve as a secondary source in that context, but that does not mean it can support an entire article about everyone else at that ceremony by itself. Consider this analogy: there was a notable winter storm that affected Texas this year, but that doesn't mean we should start creating an article for Weather in Texas in 2021 – the existence of a single notable element does not inherently justify a wider-ranging overview of the topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • "one piece of notable information" - it is not just one piece, there are at least several sources on actors receiving awards and nominations in a single year, not just Smith. That is why I think it is important to have such nominations in an article, if not the article specifically about the ceremony, then in the main article, about all ceremonies - but then the article would be too big.
            talk) 16:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
            ]

      talk) 20:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

      ]

      You are correct; my choice of words here was poor and "notable" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia that doesn't match what I was talking about.

      WP:PRIMARY better summarizes what I was trying to say. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

      ]

  • Once again, you are proposing using trivial mentions in non-reliable sources as the sole basis for an entire article about the topic, which would still include many nominees that are otherwise non-notable. This is not how
    WP:GNG works, at least in my interpretation. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete, lacks coverage in independent sources. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do not think that nominating almost 10 ceremonies at once after one single closer where the main argument is "I'm not convinced by the arguments presented by the !keeps", while there were two detailed keep votes and one delete with usual "Not enough WP:GNG to warrant an article" is a good thing - how are we supposed to find sources on so many awards quickly enough? There are many mentions of the Awards received in articles about actors, or their body of work, which indicate that it is a notable fact, and considering that these are different actors[6], [7], [8], it indicates that award and specifically ceremony are notable. The article mentions Kids Choice awards and MTV awards right with Young Artist awards, it means it is on par with those two awards.
  talk) 08:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Two of those sources are from the
    WP:RSP and therefore irrelevant to establishing notability. The third is from TVOvermind, which, if I had to guess, would also be deemed questionable at best. Moreover, those sources include only passing mentions of the awards. Per WP:GNG: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." These are articles about people who happened to win at an awards ceremony, not the awards ceremony itself. In my opinion, a notable awards ceremony will have articles specifically about it – consider the four sources for the 37th TCA Awards article that I recently created, which all directly discuss the topic. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • There are sources about the specific awards, LA Times for instacnce.
      talk) 16:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Could you provide the links? For the LA Times, I assume you're discussing this article mentioned earlier by Atlantic306, which, as I noted then, only discusses the 37th ceremony because that's when the article happened to be written. There is no mention of the various categories or much of the other information included in the article; the mentions of the ceremony are only there as a springboard to discuss the wider issues with the awards as a whole. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]