Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 6

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. Per Czar's commentary on the suitability of student newspapers as significant coverage of school-related organizations. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brown Opera Productions

Brown Opera Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No sources. Internet search reveals no extensive independent coverage. Josefaught (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Though the article no doubt needs extensive cleanup and updating there are plenty of sources. I would like to note that this deletion request is clearly inappropriate retaliatory behavior by Josefaught, which operates as an ostensible sockpuppet account. Filetime (talk) 07:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Now sourced. Apparently, Josefaught (talk · contribs) is on a spree of AfDs for Brown University-related articles. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Student opera group covered only in the Brown Daily Herald. See
  WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The sourcing is all to a publication of Brown University itself. Thus there is no indepdent coverage which is one of the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Eight references added by Filetime. Brown Daily Herald is financially independent and student run, so I feel it is acceptable to count it as independent in this case.
  talk) 10:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Student newspapers are not
  WP:ATD-R) but not without any external sources. czar 02:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Article were using only student newspaper as a source. DarwinClean (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above account, DarwinClean, has requested an indefinite block after I politely questioned his immediate AfD and content trimming participation as characteristic of an older account. To the best of my knowledge, no misconduct was identified nor Checkuser tool run, but closing admins may want to take this unusual turn of events under advisement. Jclemens (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless more sources other than the school newspaper are cited. MiracleMat (talk) 06:12, 9 September 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.

MindGarage

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

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

As far as I can tell, fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete despite the cool name, fails notability. W Nowicki (talk) 17:41, 13 September 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. Sandstein 11:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Qur'an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English

The Qur'an with Annotated Interpretation in Modern English (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 subject of this article does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Google Scholar mentions 114 works that cite this book. That's quite a lot for a work of this type. Many, perhaps more than half, of these 114 citations seem reliable and independent sources, so the only question (per
  academic and technical books: it is quite clearly widely cited, and one or more translations of the book have been published. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• An English translation of Quoran, the holiest scripture of about a quarter of world's population, is an academic and technical book? TrangaBellam (talk) 19:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores. Not to mention 114 citations on Google Scholar. Hey, Ali Ünal isn't the most accomplished academic for sure, but it definitely falls within the category. I know I'd be glad with 114 cites! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's take Haleem's translation as a benchmark. What is the citation count? More importantly, how many reviews did it get over reputed journals? If I am not wrong, it was released exactly an year earlier than Ünal's one (and has since been through three editions).
      The count of 114 is quite overestimated. As I said, it is about 30; I spotted a paragraph of discussion over here (p. 625) and nothing else of significance struck out. I have my sympathies for Ünal's fate (his article can be expanded by a lot) but at best, this can be merged with Ali Ünal. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This shoddy but well-documented thesis (yet to be cited by anyone) might be used to add something but PhD theses don't contribute to WP:NBOOK. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Provides more light than shade. JorgeLaArdilla (talk) 21:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to clarify how NBOOK is met. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep for the following reasons:

1. Just a quick search in the normal Google search, Google Books search, and Google Scholar will give you enough coverage about the notability of this book.
2. The book has been translated into Spanish (El Sagrado Corán Y Su Interpretación Comentada) after two years of its publication, which increases its notability.
3. Furthermore, this book has garnered some positive reviews from some academics and scholars, including:
   Fetullah Gülen, Bernadette Andrea, B. Jill Carroll
   , and others.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEagle107 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am competent enough to know the web-address of Google.

WP:MUSTBESOURCES

. You need to point at specific resource.

The translation is by two little known authors (1, [ 2]) from a press which is hardly known. What does that prove?

Book-cover reviews fail NBOOK. Find me a single detailed review in a journal.

Sign your posts and cease with the edit-warring. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep GNG is met; NBOOK is an optional SNG that every book need not meet to be notable. I am highly reluctant to discount translations of the Quran, as I believe that would be using Islamic doctrine of the supremacy of the Quran in Arabic against the notability of translations. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to show how GNG is met. Notwithstanding that your second line makes little sense. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources cited above in the AfD are sufficient, in my opinion, whether you like them or not. Your combination of badgering and not understanding the systemic bias concern I raised makes you look like a bully. It's not a good look, and so far has failed to sway a single participant to your side. I strongly suggest switching tactics. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as many books cite it, and there are many entries in google books.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes
  WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:14, 14 September 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.

Aubrey Rinehart

Aubrey Rinehart (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 Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails GNG almost entirely. Barely even passing mentions is the scant references given. Also, complete
  WP:SPIP in the article's creation and editing. ExRat (talk) 10:50, 13 September 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.

Brian K. Jackson

Brian K. Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Looks like advertising; I don't see notability for him or his music industry career. I searched Google for the titles of the articles given as references, and they didn't come up. So either the articles are not online for some reason or the references are entirely fabricated. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:07, 6 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Framework Telecommunication (code name: Beep)

Wireless Framework Telecommunication (code name: Beep) (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 can find no Google search results for "Wireless Framework Telecommunication" (besides mirrors of this article). As such, I'm unsure if this topic is hypothetical or original research. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 16:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looking at the Beep website, there's nothing happening since 2007 and I don't see any independent mention of this protocol. And why is there a yoga tips link (dead) on the page?-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 18:22, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Appears to be a distinctly dead project with no real notability. Can't find anything talking about the "Beep protocol" (there's an unrelated protocol with the same name) other than the SourceForge page and this article. Alex Martin (talk) 20:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable software that never caught on, despite this article! W Nowicki (talk) 17:38, 13 September 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 parallel discussions of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable surviving veterans of World War II (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood concern similar articles and cover essentially the same ground, so in closing this discussion I have taken into account all three discussions, as well as previous AfDs.

The count of !votes has been rendered useless by, if not exactly canvassing, an influx of a large number of editors who are clearly not very familiar with either our inclusion guidelines or the deletion policy. However, while the delete side generally put forth a consistent and policy-based argument---that a list that by definition will be empty in X years cannot be encyclopaedic---the case for keeping the articles is significantly undermined by a reliance on assertions that the topic is interesting, harmless, or some other argument

With a few exceptions, those in favour of keep failed to either refute the argument for deletion, or put forward their own policy-based reason for keeping the article. On that basis, I see a clear consensus to delete all three lists. – Joe (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War

List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Same reason as List of notable surviving World War 2 veterans— notability is not temporary, this list will be pointless in 10 years. Dronebogus (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:37, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If we delete every article that's on here because people find it interesting, we'd lose a third of Wikipedia. This article hurts no one. Bkatcher (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said “it’s interesting” wasn’t a valid argument to keep something, not that it was my reasoning for deleting something. And if you’re going to argue about something trivial I said you should do it on the page it’s actually written on. Dronebogus (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep List of video games notable for negative reception is an actual list. Honestly your a bit short-sighted there are tons of list on Wikipedia that probably should be deleted for your exact reasoning but you seem to have some kind of agenda with list dealing with surviving of a certain area, oldest living, etc. They are still relevant as long as you can have current content. --Tommieboi (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I explained my reasoning: it is an actual part of the GNG that notability isn’t temporary. If an article is about a topic that literally will not exist within the foreseeable future then it fails the GNG on that basis! Additionally why the Spanish Civil War of all conflicts? Why is it so outstandingly important out of all the conflicts of the same era to get a whole article on this trivial subject, especially when pretty much all the individuals listed are not in and of themselves notable? Dronebogus (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely pointless diminishing list, people get old and die, what is the encyclopedic value in this, other than that some old veterans get their names in Wikipedia? Mztourist (talk) 02:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:NOR, ... pburka (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep If the list will be pointless in 10 years then delete it in 10 years. In the meantime, it seems reasonably detailed, notable and useful so what's the rush? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about it is notable and useful? Mztourist (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:BLP (I don't think it is the job of editors to determine whether or not someone is alive). In 5-10 years (or less) this list will be completely empty which tells you everything you need to know. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per List of surviving World War I veterans, inherently notable. When the last veteran dies it will be redirected as was WWI and all other lists of last survivors. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how this squares with
    WP:NOTTEMPORARY. How about an eventual move to List of former surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War? Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep as per Andrew and DerbyCountyinNZ.
  talk) 17:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. I urge everyone here to examine this article's talk page to see first-hand the BLP and verifiability problems of this page. These veterans are obscure private individuals and names are being removed on the advice of family members. pburka (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Tommieboi. 172.58.110.212 (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is nothing wrong with any of these types of lists: Category:Last living survivors. Deleting something because it may be blank in the future, is not a valid reason for deletion. When the last survivors of any war do die, they will get mention for this in newspapers. Dream Focus 01:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That category is for individuals who became notable for being the last of their respective groups, or lists of individuals who became such. Not for a hundred random people who were among the last surviving members of a group at an arbitrary point. Dronebogus (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep important list, which will shrink to zero anyhow within the next years.Nillurcheier (talk) 07:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is important about it? As it will shrink to zero, what is the point? Mztourist (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Tommieboi. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  "important" is not a good argument if they can't back it up with reliable sources which say the same thing). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete in its current form.
  List of last surviving veterans of World War II. I suggest transforming or excerpting the article into that kind of shape; the current version is a no-go. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per pburka. Agree with Elmidae about a better model for a list with similar material. We could draftify the list with the intention of reformatting it after the design at
  List of last surviving veterans of World War II.4meter4 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per pburka. QubeCube (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per pburka. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:28, 19 September 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 parallel discussions of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable surviving veterans of World War II (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood concern similar articles and cover essentially the same ground, so in closing this discussion I have taken into account all three discussions, as well as previous AfDs.

The count of !votes has been rendered useless by, if not exactly canvassing, an influx of a large number of editors who are clearly not very familiar with either our inclusion guidelines or the deletion policy. However, while the delete side generally put forth a consistent and policy-based argument---that a list that by definition will be empty in X years cannot be encyclopaedic---the case for keeping the articles is significantly undermined by a reliance on assertions that the topic is interesting, harmless, or some other argument

With a few exceptions, those in favour of keep failed to either refute the argument for deletion, or put forward their own policy-based reason for keeping the article. On that basis, I see a clear consensus to delete all three lists. – Joe (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable surviving veterans of World War II

List of notable surviving veterans of World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability is not temporary. Back when Wikipedia was founded there were quite a few surviving WW1 veterans, but now there are none. A “list of oldest living…” article is only useful for groups that are not finite in number, like “list of living centenarians”. Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to keep this article, the argument that there are now no WW1 veterans is irrelevant, the title includes Living and as long as there are living veterans then the article is valid.....

• • Yes, it is relevant. Articles must be about topics that will actually *exist* in the foreseeable future. There will be no more living WW2 vets in what is likely to be under a decade, thus the topic of the article will be nonexistent in the foreseeable future. Therefore the article is invalid. Dronebogus
    • Two hundred years+ later, people are still debating who the last Revolutionary War soldier was. As with the WWI article, this will eventually redirect to Last surviving veterans of insurgencies and wars page. Just because it'll be irrelevant in 10-15 years doesn't mean we should delete it now. Bkatcher (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 20:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep How many times is someone going to nominate the article? It's interesting and relevant. Bkatcher (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first nomination was closed without a consensus, the second was a pile-on “keep” vote by fans of the article that had little to do with its quality, and the third was for differnt reasons than my nom and the other two. My argument is that an article with an expiration date violates the principle that notability is not finite. Also, “it’s interesting” isn’t an argument, and neither is anything you said about veterans in other wars or what happened to older articles. Dronebogus (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Pile on votes by fans of the article'? Odd way of saying other wikipedians didn't share your opinion so you felt their votes shouldn't count. Bkatcher (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps, but I didn’t think their arguments were in line with Wikipedia’s deletion policy (unless the idea of non-temporary notability was only added very recently? I honestly don’t know) Dronebogus (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is determined by existing sources, so if there are sources that discuss this topic now it is a notable topic for an article. There are sources which discuss the topic of living WW2 veterans as a group, for example [[17]], [[18]], and [[19]]. In my opinion this article passes the notability requirements at WP:LISTN. Rhino131 (talk) 00:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but I think that’s irrelevant if it violates the principle of “notability is not temporary”. If those articles were written 30 years ago about WW1 vets, would that be a reason to have an article on WW1 vets alive in the 90s? Of course not. Dronebogus (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not irrelevant if it means the article passes notability requirements and GNG. Why should your argument mean mine be discounted? If an article passes GNG, it passes GNG. And I believe it does. Rhino131 (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because my argument is also derived from the GNG, and it’s a better argument based on it. That’s how arguments work— if one person has a better argument the other is discounted. Deletion isn’t a popularity contest where all votes are equal. Dronebogus (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • From Wikipedia:Notability "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." I argue that reliable, independent sources can be found on this topic, therefore it passes the core component of GNG. "Better argument" is not for us to decide and I leave it up to the community to gain consensus. Rhino131 (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • What reliable sources allow us to verify that these 500-plus people are alive in September 2021? pburka (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • People are removed from the list if there is no recent evidence they are alive. That does not change to the notability of the article topic, which as I said it passes, and I don't feel it is a valid reason in and of itself to delete the page. Clearly we have a different opinion on this, so let's end the debate here. Rhino131 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • You just said yourself that "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable". Almost nobody on this list is verifiably living. pburka (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep List of video games notable for negative reception is an actual list. Honestly your a bit short-sighted there are tons of list on Wikipedia that probably should be deleted for your exact reasoning but you seem to have some kind of agenda with list dealing with surviving of a certain area, oldest living, etc. They are still relevant as long as you can have current content.--Tommieboi (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I explained my reasoning: it is an actual part of the GNG that notability isn’t temporary. If an article is about a topic that literally will not exist within the foreseeable future then it fails the GNG on that basis! Dronebogus (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is still a current topic where it contains people who are still living.. it's still a keep --Tommieboi (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely pointless diminishing list, people get old and die, what is the encyclopedic value in this? Mztourist (talk) 02:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep important information, which is restricted to notable persons. will shrink to zero within the next 15 Years anyhow. Nillurcheier (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You’re just affirming my point— if it will eventually cease to exist then the subjects were only notable for a limited amount of time, which means they functionally are not notable since “temporary notability” isn’t a thing on WP. Dronebogus (talk) 01:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability is not temporary. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it your position that this topic has enduring notability? 50 years from now, will it still be a notable topic? pburka (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability depends on sources and, nowadays, sources tend to endure. As for 50 years from now, that's not what we are concerned with here: we are working on the Wikipedia of today. See Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list will most probably be empty in the next 10-15 years. I cannot think of more compelling evidence of the transience (or temporariness) of this topic. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a
      WP:CRYSTAL prediction. HUman lifespan is steadily increasing and might take a big step forward in that time. So why don't we just cross that bridge when we come to it? Deleting the page as it approaches its peak of utility and notability would be perverse. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • There is no realistic way human lifespan extension technology can be developed fast enough to prevent a bunch of 90-somethings from all dying within the next 15 years or so. That’s an even more absurd use of
        WP:CRYSTAL that’s purely in the realm of science fiction. By your logic we couldn’t write articles about future NASA missions just because aliens might hypothetically invade and wipe out life on Earth… which is still slightly more plausible then what you’re suggesting. Dronebogus (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • See sources such as Changes in life expectancy 1950–2010 which explains that "Since 1840, life expectancy of the best performing country in each year has been increasing almost linearly by 2.5 years per decade." So this has already been happening for some time. I visited my father yesterday. He lived through WW2 and is still in reasonably good health. The suggestion that people like him should be considered beyond hope is not accepted. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The oldest person ever was 122 when she died. In 15 years some of the youngest people on this list will be over a hundred… assuming they’re even still alive right now. And based on that calculus you provided the average lifespan of people in developed countries should increase from 85-90 to 87-92, not to over 120. Dronebogus (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Moves are not done by deletion. It is normal for tenses in our articles to change as events such as the Olympics move from the future to the present to the past. This is done by ordinary editing. As for
          WP:NOTTEMPORARY, this supports Keep because it explains that "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Delete 1. Classic
  WP:LSC, the vast majority of people on this list are not notable as veterans, this is incidental to their notability. How many of people on the list are mentioned as WWII veterans in the first line of their lede? 3. As pointed out here the article should not contain "notable" in the article title. Without "notable" in the title it would clearly unmanageable as there are still millions of "non-notable" veterans (Note that it took 6 years before the article title was reverted to include "notable"). DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 08:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That's classic
  WP:NOTDUPE, "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep I've had so many experiences over the last decade of the 'hand of history' passing over me as I edit Wikipedia and this is certainly one of them. All of these individuals are notable, and as the article shrinks it shall become a vital resource for future historians. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what about this list will be "a vital resource for future historians"? How is knowing a declining list of surviving notable WWII veterans relevant for future historians or anyone for that matter? Mztourist (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They could draw abitary links betweem them as modern non-fic scribblers are wont to do. No Swan So Fine (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you’re admitting there’s no serious, realistic use of this list to anyone, let alone future historians? Dronebogus (talk) 15:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This list might be temporary, just as
  List of last surviving veterans of World War Two. BilledMammal (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I can sort of buy that. That’s a lot more reasonable than “I like it” or “whatabout XYZ”. Still, you’re implying that “list of last surviving veterans of WW2 who are also notable for things other than that” is somehow a logical cross-categorization. Dronebogus (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The cross-categorization is problematic, and might be evidence of this being
      WP:TOOSOON, but determining when we pass from "too soon" to the "right time" is difficult, and since we know the "right time" is inevitable I believe we are better just keeping and improving this article, rather than having a frequent debate about whether "now" is the "right time". BilledMammal (talk) 02:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • I disagree that it's TOOSOON. A handful of the people on this list appear to, in fact, be "last surviving veterans." e.g. Ben Ferencz is the last surviving Nuremberg prosecutor. A growing list of last surviving veterans would be much more appropriate than this list of 580 veterans selected from among the million or more still living. pburka (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @
          List of last surviving veterans of World War II. pburka (talk) 18:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:N
  among others.

• The entries are almost all unverifiable. We don't have any references that say these people are living, or even that they were recently alive. As far as I can tell, inclusion in this list relies on Wikipedia editors trying and failing to find obituaries for each of the more than 500 people. That's both original research and unreliable.
• The list is an unencyclopedic cross-categorization of (a) people who are veterans of WWII, and (b) who were young at the time, and (c) who did something else notable, and (d) who are (probably) alive today. There's little connection between these categories.
• Any notability the group has is temporary, as we know that in another decade or two there will be no living veterans and the list will be deleted. Wikipedia requires that topics have enduring significance (see
  WP:NOTTEMPORARY
  ). That we (almost) all agree that this list will be deleted in the foreseeable future shows that the topic's notability isn't enduring.
• On the surface, the argument that this will eventually evolve into a "Last surviving veterans" page is compelling, but it's inaccurate and
  Benjamin B. Ferencz, John Hemingway, and Kazimierz Klimczak
  , but that's not this list.

pburka (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:V issues with this one as well. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because this is an unencyclopedic cross categorization. Per Pburka, a large majority of those on the list are notable for things unrelated to their military service. Reywas92^Talk 14:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
  WP:HTRIVIA-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Listing everyone notable enough to have a Wikipedia article who is still alive and served in World War 2, is a valid grouping, clearly defined inclusion criteria, and aids in navigation. Far more useful than the category for this since it allows more information to be presented. Dream Focus 01:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it’s just a meaningless piece of trivia since they generally aren’t notable for their military service. Dronebogus (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't this be better as a category? Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    We already have categories for WWII participants and living people. What's the point of merging them (in a list)? Those concepts are notable separately but together... not so much. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's your opinion it’s just a meaningless piece of trivia, not everyone agrees, they do not have to be notable for their military service as the title says its a list of notable survivors, so they can be notable for any part of life but have to have served in ww2.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.48.211.240 (talk) 16:37, September 9, 2021 (UTC)

That’s circular reasoning. “The article is notable because it says it is.” The problem is that these are people not notable for military service or lifespan being treated as notable for military service and lifespan just because they’re long-lived veterans who are also notable for other reasons. It’s an arbitrary cross-categorization that is more trivial than encyclopedic. Dronebogus (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Weird inclusion criteria; in a few more years there'll sadly be none and the problem resolves itself, but since when do we even entertain the idea of such temporary lists? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Longer than Piotrus has been here. When the list gets short, the final survivors then become timeless. See Last surviving United States war veterans, for example – a page that has existed since 2003. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • We have no idea who those people are even going to be at this point. Keeping a “waiting list” of 500+ random people who happen to have a Wikipedia article for the next 15 years waiting to find out is completely silly. Most of these people wouldn’t even count towards logical sub-categories (i.e. who cares about the last surviving pianist to fight in WW2?) Dronebogus (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep People do care about the last surviving veterans, and though you don't (Dronebogus) doesn't mean others don't this list is used, is valid and has historical meaning, it is a source of information often used by me and i suspect many other users...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Endsord (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts please. You seem to be a very inactive User with a very narrow focus. You say the page "a source of information often used by me" for what? Mztourist (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to ask permission or advise you of what i use the list for, and if i am an inactive user again none of your business. SO a source of information used by me is sufficient for you....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Endsord (talk • contribs) 03:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your inactivity and unfamiliarity with the basics of WP undermines your claims as to the importance of this list. Mztourist (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ad hominem attack! Bkatcher (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s valid if the user’s inexperience is clearly demonstrated by their poor arguments. Wikipedia requires basic competence, after all. Dronebogus (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And you too are so good, that only your opinion seems to matter. should you two really be allowed to decide on what is deleted and what isnt because i as a user am not as experienced, down right pig headedness.... now give it a rest eh boys...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Endsord (talk • contribs) 13:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could start by signing your posts and using proper spelling and capitalization to at least make it seem like you’re willing to have a modicum of professionalism. Dronebogus (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does insulting me make you feel better, it probably does, because you are probably an internet warrior, as hard as your keyboard... Grow up... Your going to get this article deleted come what may, that's crystal clear, just from reading your responses you can tell that you have decided that and no matter what anyone else says thats going to happen.. Conversation over.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Endsord (talk • contribs) 04:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not trying to insult you, I’m advising you to follow basic guidelines on writing style and editing. You’re the one making baseless personal attacks that have nothing to do with my arguments or ability to edit Wikipedia. Also, I have no unilateral authority to delete this article; and AfD is a debate, not a popularity contest (see

WP:N) rather than making unverifiable claims about how beloved it supposedly is. Dronebogus (talk) 17:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment what if we just turned this into a redirect to
  List of last surviving veterans of World War Two right now? It solves the major complaints about the article while preserving the content it contains for potential future use. Dronebogus (talk) 08:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • They're really two separate articles. Most people here were not the 'last' of anything, and not everyone in the other article is especially notable. Nice suggestion, though. Let's keep working together. Bkatcher (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well most people here are not notable for participating in WW2, while everyone at the other article is even if they don’t currently have enough sources for their own article. So most people here don’t make sense being treated as notable for being WW2 vets because they’re mostly notable for other things, whereas everyone at the other article IS notable for being a WW2 vet since they’re the all the last in a certain category related to the war. In conclusion, the other article is a superior substitute for this one since the notability criteria make much more sense. Dronebogus (talk) 21:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per pburka --Khajidha (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a topic with significant coverage and sourcing.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And where is the coverage of this topic as a an actual topic and not just random “oldest living XYZ…” articles? Dronebogus (talk) 21:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, always suspicious on its face when the AFD nominator proceeds to !vote a particular way and is maniacally driven to rebut every alternative view. In past AFD attempts, my first impression was that this article was better presented as cross-categorization. Some very cogent wikipedians shared their reasoning that this list gave space to briefly explain someone's service or notability in ways that a simple scan of categories doesn't allow. This has been a useful reference for those attempting to understand what living veterans of WWII might be out there. The comparison to an article about a pro sports season, such as the 2021_NFL_season is apt. We all know that the season will end at some point, with some degree of likelihood (pandemic-driven delays much?) and as of this writing, the article exists and present a view of the topic at this moment in time.Cander0000 (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but there aren’t articles listing currently living players in the ‘21 NFL season, or the ‘68 NFL season, or any other seasons, because that’s an arbitrary cross-categorization that will inevitably become nonexistent and irrelevant. I keep arguing with almost every !keep vote because most of them are variations on “I like it” which isn’t an argument or “well it’ll just be deleted anyway” which is exactly my argument for deletion. Now are you actually going to provide a policy-based refutation to my arguments or are you just going to complain about them existing? Dronebogus (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additionally I’ve also proposed turning this into a redirect for
      List of last surviving veterans of World War Two, which is a similar but more logical and less finite article. Doing so would leave page history intact but out of general view. Dronebogus (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • A pro-sports season is very different. The number of games in the 1968 NFL season hasn't gone down since then, and a list of the games won't wither away to nothingness as time passes. This list is more similar to something like "List of NFL games in the 2021 season that have yet to be played". --Khajidha (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Rhino131 and Tommieboi. 172.58.110.212 (talk) 08:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it's too early. When it goes below 400 or somewhere around there it could be replaced with
  List of last surviving veterans of World War II. --Dorglorg (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Most of the people on this list are celebrities or politicians who happen to be veterans. Do you think it's likely that any of these ~600 people (of the over 1 million living veterans) will be the last surviving veterans? pburka (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not my point. I think this article is Wikipedia-worthy and shouldn't be scrapped yet, and the new article isn't ready to replace it as the last WWII veteran isn't projected to die until the 2040s.--Dorglorg (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies. I misunderstood you. Do you mean that this article is notable for now, but will lose notability in the future as it shrinks? pburka (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes.--Dorglorg (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well that makes no sense as a “keep” argument since notability can’t disappear— it’s either notable forever or it was never notable in the first place. Dronebogus (talk) 23:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just reread my second post for my argument. You can replace the word "notable" with "relevant" then as I wasn't trying to get into any notability arguments.--Dorglorg (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per pburka QubeCube (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Historical importance of ww2 compared to regular sporting events like NFL seasons obvious. Media interest and coverage of surviving veterans proved by almost every single article listed here including their sources. Fulfills
  List of last surviving veterans of World War Two is impossible at the moment without vandalizing Wikpedia's quality as the latter article only contains 16 surviving veterans compared to the 597 veterans listed here. Renewal6 (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  — Renewal6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pburka (talk • contribs) 18:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I genuinely assume that the fact that I'm a newcomer at Wikipedia won't be used as a means to ridicule my IMHO reasonable arguments. Renewal6 (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes but disruptively, inappropriately, and prematurely closing an AfD discussion in an attempt at getting what you want will be. Dronebogus (talk) 19:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I had already undone it, before you commented, considering it to be inappropriate for myself, so no constructive need for a reply like that. If getting what I want is in line with arguments, I consider it as neither disruptive nor premature. Renewal6 (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • You seem to be pretty experienced, but in case you weren't familiar, the guidelines for non-admin discussion closure are at
          WP:NACD. pburka (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Okay, thank you and mea culpa considering the fourth paragraph! Renewal6 (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Rhino and Tommyboi. -
  wolf 20:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -
  trivial cross-categorisation based on the intersection of "WWII veterans" and "living". To quote someone else, yes, this is a possible way to list this topic, but so would be "WWII veterans" and "born on a Wednesday". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs
  )
• Delete The fact is that many of these people don't have any indication that they are alive is concerning. Lists should be permanently notable, not temporarily. Many people of all walks of life served in WW2, it is generally not a defining trait. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which specific veterans do you see here whose living status is in doubt? This page is pretty rigorously patrolled, with periodic purges of doubtful cases. As for the second part of your argument, please go up to a veteran of any war and tell them their service was not a defining trait. Bkatcher (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Something being important does not make it notable. Unless you can show reliable sources which depict this intersection ("WWII veterans" a "living") to actually be more than statistical trivia; then what you have is still just your unsupported opinion. Like unsourced statements in article; it is not convincing. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Two invalid arguments. Firstly, recently confirmed alive status is an inclusion criterion for this list. Secondly, the military service, i. e. veteran status, of the included persons in connection with their notability has to be backed up by sources in every single case. Due to that, it's proved that this article fulfills
      WP:LISTN. If your second argument was valid, the military service of Princess Elizabeth, e. g., wouldn't be covered by the media, because millions of British people served in the military during ww2, so nothing relevant about Princess Elizabeth having done the same. Renewal6 (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Your rebuttals are text-book
        WP:LISTN, you need to find a source which specifically shows that "Veterans of WWII who are still alive" is a notable group; the same way, say, List of presidents of the United States is a list about a notable group (US presidents) discussed as such in sources. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • You didn't understand my argument. The articles themselves provide or should provide the sources that specifically show that "Veterans of WWII who are still alive" is a notable group. For example, the article about Lawrence Brooks (American_veteran) has four references, all of them verify the existence of such a group and the media coverage of them. Thus, it is proved that this list covers an encyclopedically notable topic and NOT an arbitrary cross-categorization like "List of veterans of World War II born on a Wednesday". Renewal6 (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not how list notability works. Individual entrants being notable does not mean that the list itself is notable. One could make a "List of piano sonatas in C major with the first movement in ternary time"; and have sourced articles about each individual piece listed there. That would still not make the list itself a notable list topic, since it would be a trivial cross categorisation, like here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's kind of a Reductio ad absurdum argument. We have articles such as List of presidents of the United States who owned slaves or list of television performers who died during production. Living notable World War II veterans is hardly that ridiculously specific. Bkatcher (talk) 03:19, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Other similarly ill-thought-out subjects existing is basically a
                WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument (the second one of those almost certainly warrants a deletion, the first one maybe not because it's possible there'll be something about that). Unless you can show that this list subject meets LISTN (by showing actual sources which cover this, not ones which maybe trivially mention "X is the oldest" without giving any further coverage), then it is just as trivial as any other cross-categorisation one could think of. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
                ]
                • The first is certainly notable, e.g. [20][21][22]. If someone can produce sources like these for this list I'll happily support keeping it. pburka (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is outrageous, Ive been crossreferencing this page for years! (As have many others, I just no longer have a wikipedia account these days as I've retired) Why was it deleted? It should of been a strong keep, as per prior conversations regarding this and these conversations, from memory - date back years. 86.144.76.56 (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.101.106 (talk) [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 parallel discussions of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of surviving veterans of the Spanish Civil War (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable surviving veterans of World War II (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood concern similar articles and cover essentially the same ground, so in closing this discussion I have taken into account all three discussions, as well as previous AfDs.

The count of !votes has been rendered useless by, if not exactly canvassing, an influx of a large number of editors who are clearly not very familiar with either our inclusion guidelines or the deletion policy. However, while the delete side generally put forth a consistent and policy-based argument---that a list that by definition will be empty in X years cannot be encyclopaedic---the case for keeping the articles is significantly undermined by a reliance on assertions that the topic is interesting, harmless, or some other argument

With a few exceptions, those in favour of keep failed to either refute the argument for deletion, or put forward their own policy-based reason for keeping the article. On that basis, I see a clear consensus to delete all three lists. – Joe (talk) 08:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood

List of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Notability is not temporary. A list of living former US presidents will be notable as long as the United States of America still exists, but once every actor from this era dies this article will be pointless. This list is also arbitrarily defined (when was the “Golden Age” beyond “before the Studio System fell”?) and most of the younger actors on this list are barely relevant to the era since they just debuted during the tail end of it at a young age. Dronebogus (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It is
  WP:BLP
  .

• The criteria for inclusion are an unencyclopedic cross-categorization: actors who worked during an ill-defined period who are also long-lived (although the youngest is only 65). It also favors child actors, arguably an implicit third cross-categorization. These cross-categorizations are not
  defining characteristics
  .
• The criteria for inclusion are ambiguous. "Golden Age" isn't well-defined, as shown by this self-referential sentence: "Due to disagreement amongst editors regarding the time period of the Golden Age of Hollywood, the 302 living actors who made their credited debut after 1949 and before 1960 are listed in this section." (Ron Howard was a Golden Age actor??)
• There's no evidence that this list is treated as a group by reliable sources. Of course some magazine or newspaper will periodically do a "where are they now" feature on some subset of the actors, but they're writing about a more specific subset and they're writing at a specific time. Reliable sources are not actively tracking this group of people.
• Most (or perhaps all) of the entries are unverifiable. How do we know Anne Vernon (b. 1924) is alive in 2021? She hasn't had a credited role since 1972 and I don't see any recent news coverage. Our claim that she's living is based, as far as I can tell, on the absence of a published obituary. Claiming she's alive in 2021 with no supporting source is original research.
• The list likely presents incorrect information about recently deceased people, a BLP violation. While it's one thing for a biography article to omit the person's death for a while, it's quite another for us to positively assert that a person is alive. This list of more than 400 sometimes obscure figures requires constant maintenance and cannot possibly be reliable. Betty Lou Holland, for example, remained a "living actor" for 7 months after her death. (Some of the listed actors don't even have their own Wikipedia pages!)
• The topic is of only temporary interest.
  MCU
  actors. One is TOOLATE and the other TOOSOON. This list is only interesting for a few decades: admittedly much longer than the kind of flash-in-the-pan topics we usually think of, but it's still ephemeral and lacks enduring notability.
• The list will eventually become empty and be deleted. This is evidence that it will be non-notable in the future.
  WP:NOTTEMPORARY
  tells us that notability is permanent, so I infer that the list must not be notable today, either.

pburka (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Maybe find a better comparison argument than list of living former US presidents. I think the maximum number of that is four, which is right now. But along those lines, any such list of living individuals for any demographic, is a dwindling list. — Maile (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, my point was that a list of living former presidents would *not* be a dwindling list since there would regularly be new additions, therefore it will be notable into the foreseeable future. There will never be new golden age Hollywood stars since that era ended long ago, so the list will not be notable in the foreseeable future. Dronebogus (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The bulk of these were, logically, child actors from that period who merely share longevity in common now. But that's not a defining characteristic and there's little indication that them being alive still is a notable intersection or specific group. While a List of Golden Age of Hollywood actors may be a reasonable list – though its length may be unwieldy and hard to limit to those subjectively most famous during that period – the cross-categorization of that with those who were young enough to still be alive today and still in fact are isn't encyclopedic. A "living" list for other eras or other broad occupations wouldn't make sense either (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living silent film actors). Reywas92^Talk 00:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep List of video games notable for negative reception is an actual list. Honestly your a bit short-sighted there are tons of list on Wikipedia that probably should be deleted for your exact reasoning but you seem to have some kind of agenda with list dealing with surviving of a certain area, oldest living, etc. They are still relevant as long as you can have current content. --Tommieboi (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop copypasting a bad “whatabout” argument that doesn’t even correctly interpret my argument for deletion. The list you cite is notable because there will always be badly reviewed games and those reviews don’t predictably cease to exist like humans do. When you say “notable for being a member of finite group living today” you’re really saying “member of finite group notable for being alive in 2021” which is obviously not a claim to notability. Dronebogus (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a fun article that doesn't hurt anyone. Bkatcher (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument. And saying “it doesn’t hurt anyone” isn’t true either since it still takes up room and is potentially giving out false info about living or recently dead people for no good reason. Dronebogus (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep Encyclopedic and useful resource.†
  Encyclopædius 08:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This is the opposite of encyclopedic. And who would seriously find this useful, and why? Dronebogus (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The
  Golden Age of Hollywood is considered to have continued into the 1960s, and this article's cutoff of 1959 is entirely arbitrary, as noted on the talk page. This could conceivably be thousands of individuals longer when that is included. List of people and films from Classical Hollywood cinema is far too long to be useful but lists movies up to 1969. I'm not sure about other, better pages about film history highlighting the stars, but with this list having quite a few with only minor roles and and those who have predictably passed away, this isn't it. Reywas92^Talk 14:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Those !voting "keep", do we have any sources discussing this list as a collective? BilledMammal (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:LISTCRUFT. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  WP:HTRIVIA-- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 23:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep It certainly falls under the category of encyclopedic.Radiohist (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’d say it more likely fails the category definition of “encyclopedic” as it’s useless arbitrarily defined trivia. Dronebogus (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you could say articles and lists about reality shows are useless arbitrarily defined trivia. You could say that about a lot of things. Whether something is trivia or not is subjective.Radiohist (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but what’s more-or-less not subjective is that this list is unlikely to be ever be defined in an agreed-upon manner, extremely difficult to maintain and verify properly, and ultimately pointless as the topic will not even exist in the future. And yes, some people have argued “then why delete it now?” about the last point, but my counter-argument is “then why NOT delete it now if it will eventually get deleted anyway?”Dronebogus (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only a person who doesn't have a good argument and knows he is probably worong answers qurstions with Why not do...Radiohist (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that, other than it’s meant to be insulting to me somehow. And perhaps consider checking your spelling before you post. Dronebogus (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I challenge Dronebogus not to have to have the last word and just let people vote. Bkatcher (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Like I said, it’s a debate, not a popularity contest. I have a right to dispute your arguments just as you have a right to dispute mine. Or at least tell people that their spelling is wrong and I couldn’t understand what they were trying to say. Dronebogus (talk) 04:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A google search shows there are sources which discus the topic of living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood, which indicates they are notable as a group. Also in examples such as the NY Times obit for [[23]] Olivia de Havilland it says in the lead paragraph "She was 104 and one of the last surviving stars of Hollywood’s fabled Golden Age", indicating these people are notable not just for being famous actors, but specifically for being long living actors from the Golden Age of Hollywood. I believe this article passes GNG, and therefore should not be deleted. Issues of article quality are a matter of cleanup, and AFD is not cleanup. Rhino131 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol either the NYT is wrong or this article is. We don't have a good definition of the Golden Age but if we want to use this mere passing, vague statement, this page needs a narrower time span... She's notable for her acting, not for being long lived still, even if that's a true fact about her (that's the only line in the obit that would be any different had she died earlier). Reywas92^Talk 14:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It certainly doesn't further discussion to go "lol". It only serves to increase hostility in this discussion as it can be seen as you behaving in a very condescending way towards the other participants.Radiohist (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be a more compelling argument if Olivia de Havilland were on this list, but of course she's not because she's dead. As time progresses this list will dwindle to increasingly obscure actors with increasingly tenuous links to the inconsistently-defined "Golden Age". The Times obituary might support a case for a List of last surviving stars of the Golden Age of Hollywood page, which could include people like de Havilland who was described as "one of the last surviving stars of Hollywood’s fabled Golden Age" in a reliable source. But that's a different list than this one. pburka (talk) 15:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously notable topic. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well no based on the fact that me and numerous other editors both disagree with you, plus the lack of significant coverage of this topic found thus far, I’d say it’s not obvious. Dronebogus (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I and numerous other editors agree with Joe. You know, you don't have to argue with every single 'keep' vote. Bkatcher (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, and as far as the nonsense that it will have to be deleted once they're all dead, see
      List of surviving veterans of World War I. Upon the 2012 death of Florence Green, the list was redirected to a more appropriate list, while preserving the long and interesting history of the original page. I see no reason why a similar solution wouldn't work in this case. I'll add that I agree that the list should be narrowed, and the inclusion of Ron Howard, et al., is ridiculous, but content disputes are not dealt with by deleting the article. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Keep - For the reasons already stated above. When the day comes that all people associated with the "Golden Age of Hollywood" are gone, I don't see why the page can't be renamed to something more appropriate and have the content adjusted for the name change. The list has issues that need to resolved, such as further discussion on narrowing down which names should be mentioned (as mentioned above, Ron Howard and so on), but that can be discussed in the talk page. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it is a topic discussed by many reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And where are these sources…? Dronebogus (talk) 21:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Rhino131 and Tommieboi. 172.58.110.212 (talk) 08:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the arguments already named. --Clibenfoart (talk) 14:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I think the page should stay it's gonna be many many many many decades before the last one eventually dies and by then, as someone else said the article could be renamed to something else.--ThatBaileyLad (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the article List of people and films from Classical Hollywood cinema was deleted with the consensus that the criteria were too broad and lacked a widely agreed-upon definition. That would appear to set a precedent for deleting this article for similar reasons. Dronebogus (talk) 02:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The only reasonable source I could find that discusses this list is this, which on it's own does not satisfy
  WP:V issue; just because you can't find any reports to say somebody has died, doesn't mean they're still alive. This list is definitively stating that every person listed is living, which is completely unverifiable, and subsequently strips the list of any encyclopaedic value. I'm also in agreement with the sentiment that any perceived notability this list has will die out with it's last member, meaning that, by definition, it's notability is only temporary. – ².O.^Boxing 13:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment How long do these discussions usually go on? Bkatcher (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Usually a week, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A fascinating resource. Half our sports and politics lists are arbitarily defined lists as well and much loved. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples please. And also how many times must I say “people like it” and “it’s interesting” aren’t valid AfD arguments? Dronebogus (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dronebogus Look at the amount of people whose time has been thoroughly wasted by you. It has been 12 days and you have not presented one objective reason to delete this page. It is time to close this discussion.Radiohist (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I would say you haven’t. You seem to have a rather pugnacious and belittling attitude towards me which would suggest you’re looking for a personal victory in a fight rather than a productive consensus. Dronebogus (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • All of your statements have been borderline subjective and in the realm of "Why not delete it?". Why not do something is not a valid argument. So far you have been condescending towards every person who has expressed a different opinion. The fact that you have been asked on your talk page to refrain from hastily starting deletion discussions proves this page shouldn't be deleted. The majority of the people agree that there is no reason to delete the page, so I suggest we end this discussion.Radiohist (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, my main arguments were “notability isn’t finite, so this finite subject isn’t notable” and “the subject has no agreed-upon criteria for inclusion, making the list
          WP:INDISCRIMINATE”. I also agree with the argument that there simply aren’t enough sources discussing this as an actual group. And I have no idea which deletion incidents your referring to specifically, but it doesn’t “prove” anything since I’ve started countless others that were deleted (and plenty of others which weren’t) without fanfare, and in any case it has nothing to do with the issue at hand and is simply an ad hominem attack. Dronebogus (talk) 15:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Comment These discussions usually go on for a week, but this has gone on for nearly two. Who makes the final decision here? Bkatcher (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  An admin will make a decision. I imagine this one will be complicated because the analysis requires more than counting votes. That editor will need to evaluate the arguments to determine if they're policy- and guideline-based, and then decide on the strength of those whether the page should be kept or deleted. pburka (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per pburka; as the usual example of trivial intersection of "characteristic x" and "living people" (with the additional implication of
  WP:ITSINTERESTING be ignored". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:42, 18 September 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.

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

)

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

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views

)

Edge3 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Edge3 (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would recommend this be a batch nomination with the other wards at Category:City of Chicago Wards. Curbon7 (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Curbon7: Done. Thanks! Edge3 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict)Weak keep unless there's some other guideline or consensus about wards I think they do fall under legally recognized places, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Archive 10#Proposed deletion of all articles on local government subdivisions wards, divisions etc.. Wards tend to have more artificial boundaries than municipalities or even district though and there tends to be less coverage on them. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Crouch, Swale: Thanks for your input. Just FYI, I've changed this to a batch nomination as per Curbon7's suggestion above. Edge3 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, the same points probably apply to all 3 (out of 50) of them we have articles for but

  4th Ward, Chicago does include more content and sources than this one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Strong Keep, I started the article in 2015, and yesterday after I got an email saying it was up for deletion I did some googling about the ward and OH WOW what a corrupt haven of politically-connected criminal endeavor! Local news seems to mention it regularly! It just so happens to be the center of the Daley Machine. Aside from that, I would argue that local wards within cities are notable, each has unique histories, demographics and characteristics, this particular one has been the center of political power in Chicago for decades. I haven't had time to congeal everything I googled to expand the current article yet but here's a link dump anyone can use to improve the article (hysterically there's even a has-your-alderman-been-indicted website in an article that specifically mentions the 11th ward):
• https://wgntv.com/news/chicagocrime/has-your-alderman-been-indicted-this-website-answers-that-for-you/
• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Daniel-Bliss-3/publication/253342850_The_New_Daley_Machine_1989-2004_by/links/562a743608ae04c2aeb1a7c9/The-New-Daley-Machine-1989-2004-by.pdf
• https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-alderman-patrick-daley-thompson-federal-probe-20210429-j5euehymabc7djhc4xhm2fdrau-story.html
• https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/patrick-thompson-daley-city-council-11th-ward/1985149/?amp
• https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150407/bridgeport/patrick-daley-thompson-wins-11th-ward-election.amp/
• https://news.wttw.com/2015/01/20/race-representing-11th-ward
• https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-politics/get-to-know-your-ward-11th-ward/113666/
• https://www.google.com/books/edition/American_Pharaoh/nGem2g467GAC?hl=en&gbpv=1

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep
  talk) 04:18, 14 September 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 12:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiFood.eu

WikiFood.eu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

2011 NC at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikifood that probably should have been a soft deletion as even the merge vote didn't seem to believe there was sourcing. Per its organizer, it won a couple of awards, but there's no indication these are notable, and there's no English or German sourcing to meet GNG. German article doesn't h ave anything of help as it & the Englist have the same sourcing. No article for Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology and no indication this was anything more than one of their projects so might be UNDUE there. Star Mississippi 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 00:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Poorly-referenced article for non-notable website. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – my searches aren't finding any coverage that would satisfy
  WP:NWEB/the GNG. (GScholar gets a few hits, but these are mostly primary-source descriptions of various studies involving the site.) And contra the !vote in the previous AfD, there seems to be no possible target for merging (or redirecting). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 7 September 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 12:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland Selected Reserve Force Medal

Maryland Selected Reserve Force Medal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article with unclear notability that hasn't been substantially updated in 15 years. Andrew³²⁷ 13:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I found a reference, but it appears that the Maryland Selected Reserve Force Medal is a proposed medal that was never officially authorized. Someone may want to compare the Maryland listings in Category:Awards and decorations of the United States National Guard with the official list of Maryland National Guard decorations at https://cupdf.com/document/maryland-military-department-regulation-672-1-awards-and-decorations.html. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Never issued, and the proposal to issue it was not notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'd enthusiastically entertain a discussion about notability if this commendation had been issued, or if there had been significant debate about the proposal to do so, or ultimate decision to not do so. But I couldn't find anything along those lines. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unissued non-notable medal that the awardee had to purchase? Nah. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is yet to meet notability standards. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 05:32, 13 September 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:09, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

B. A. Baracus

B. A. Baracus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Most of the sources on google search only shows and talks about Mr. T and not the character, fails notability. DarwinClean (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above account, DarwinClean, has requested an indefinite block after I politely questioned his immediate AfD and content trimming participation as characteristic of an older account. To the best of my knowledge, no misconduct was identified nor Checkuser tool run, but closing admins may want to take this unusual turn of events under advisement. Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's lots of coverage of the character. Just explaining what B.A. stands for is alone worth a section and so it's good that the article does this. But it still needs expansion as at least one source explains that "it was actually Bad Ass"! As for Mr T, he's notable too but note that the character has been played by other actors such as
  WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. There is a lot out there, and I am leaning towards keep. This is two page long but half-serious: [24]. And [25] here is a RS for what BA stands for, and a bit different from what Andrew found above :P I haven't noticed any great SIGCOV but this needs a proper BEFORE and given the dramu with the blocked nom, I doubt the nom will volunteer to do it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The character's enduring notability is established with two different actors portraying the character 25 years apart. Banana Republic (talk) 12:33, 7 September 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.

Withdrawn. DarwinClean (talk) 22:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]