Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 September 9
- 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. ✗plicit 13:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Murder of Janet Brown
- Murder of Janet Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deletion is necessary per
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Sustained national coverage for over 20 years from multiple ]
- Keep Would seem to be notable, GNews still brings up coverage of the event. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable unsolved case well-covered by the media. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Ared Arzumanian
- Ared Arzumanian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to satisfy
- Note: This discussion has been included in the DarkGlow • 19:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the DarkGlow • 19:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the DarkGlow • 19:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - I can't find any coverage about him, other than a mention about being on a panel of judges in a local talent show. Nfitz (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:NMUSICIAN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2021 (UTC)]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on
Vinay Vashisht
- Vinay Vashisht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Semi-advertorialized
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Linda Danielsson
- Linda Danielsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: Easily fails ]
- Delete Agree with nom. Not important enough to warrant an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Linda Danielsson is Notable in Mullsjö. Spitzfizzer (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG. Being notable within a town of less that 6,000 inhabitants does automatically equal notability on an international encyclopedia. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete GNG is not met here Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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. Although sources have been proposed for this topic, rough consensus here is that they do not overcome the OR issues this page has. Sandstein 10:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
List of stock characters in military fiction
Complete failure of WP:OR, almost wholly unsourced -- and tagged for both for a dozen years and more -- and there've been those advocating deletion for over a decade. High bloody time. Prod removed with no remotely valid rationale.
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It's easy to find sources for this stuff – a selection of various types follows. Our policy ]
- These are the 12 characters in every war movie
- The Military Novel (a journal paper)
- The Military Novel (a book)
- Representations of First World War Returned Soldiers on the Home Front in Some Commonwealth Women Writers’ Fiction
- The World War II Combat Film – Anatomy of a Genre
- From Hanoi to Hollywood – The Vietnam War in American Film
- The Hollywood War Film
- Women in War Films – From Helpless Heroine to G.I. Jane
- Savage Economy – The Returns of Middle English Romance
- The Brontës and War – Fantasy and Conflict in Charlotte and Branwell Brontë’s Youthful Writings
- Other than your first source -- Some Dude's Website -- in not a single case do you identify where in these books this concept is discussed, WHETHER these books discuss the concept at all, where the archetypes set forth in the article are discussed, where said archetypes are defined, or what consensus in reliable sources is about them. All you've thrown up here is a bunch of random Google hits. Ravenswing 01:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Ravenswing: I don't think 1. is "Some Dude's Website". www.wearethemighty.com by their own description are a "digital publisher and media agency". For what it's worth, they are currently used as sources on some Wikipedia articles. Media Bias/Fact Check reports here that We Are The Mighty is a news service and states: "Overall, we rate We Are The Might Least Biased based on minimal political editorializing. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record" i.e. did not so far fail a fact-check. For 2., the interesting part starts a p. 32 at the first new paragraph and continues, as far as I have seen, to p. 36. Daranios (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep the sources provided by Andrew suggest this is a notable subject. What is needed now is to incorporate these into the article as inline citations. talk) 23:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete per nom. RS completely lacking. Using a list to evade BASIC should not be supported. Yes they are all war fiction cliches, but to have a page would require serious academic writing on the subject, rather than just an OR collection. Mztourist (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Only one of Andrew's sources is applicable. The Brontës are a particularly bad example
, seeing as they preceded films of any sort by about half a century. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Clarityfiend: Why is the fact that the Brontës' work precedes film an argument against that source being useful here? This list, after all, is not about stock characters in military film (even though some of the secondary sources deal with that), but in military fiction. Daranios (talk) 19:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, the Brontës are renowned for their pugnacious prose: Jane "Rambo" Eyre, War-thering Heights. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Clarityfiend: Ah, I see your point now. However, it seems based on the title of that book only. I also don't think the Brontës' work is military fiction (though that secondary source assures us there are a number of military characters in it). But that book also discusses their inspirations, which do include military works. I can't say how much there is because I can see only very limited previews. But e.g. p. 34 has "Paul Jorgenson emphasizes that... the common soldier provided a 'comic substratum' for serious plays [it seems to me The Incompetent Enlisted Man is one sub-type of "the common soldier"]... Shakespeare is known for his humorous military characters..." So there is at least something that is useful for our subject here, it's not just a "random Google hit". Daranios (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Not really; that's a casual mention at best. It seems we're talking two different issues here. I don't dispute that one could likely -- with proper sourcing -- come up with a Stock characters in military fiction article. But this isn't that article. This is a list article, requiring the legwork necessary to write the parent article, AND sourcing each and every entry to this one. That work hasn't been done, and other than Dream Focus' contribution, no one's attempting to do it. Ravenswing 02:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @WP:AtD, etc.), assuming that it can be improved. I am convinced it can. As I said, this is a volunteer project, so noone specifically is responsible for doing any specific work, and there is no time limit for when improvements have to be done. Or in other words, noone is any more responsible for improving here than you. Tell you what, let's work together to solve your objection "That work hasn't been done, and other than Dream Focus' contribution, no one's attempting to do it." If you are willing to work on it, I'll shift my priorities and will, too, given some time. What do you think? I've done a bit of a head start by sourcing one part of one stock character type. Daranios (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)]
- @
- Delete per nom. Perhaps the tropes exist but the article is based solely on original research considering no significant coverage has been given to the topic. – DarkGlow • 07:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete per nom and Mztourist. There's no evidence that this topic has received any significant attention outside of Cracked style listicles. I can't find anything better than what's been presented and, since that is just a grab-bag of google hits to partial text matches dumped here to try to dismay other participants with volume over substance, I think my standard of scholarship is a bit higher. I mean, I like TVTropes and I like Cracked style listicles sometimes but Wikipedia is not the place for this largely OR agglomeration. Reyk YO! 08:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as WP:OR. The current version is unsalvageable. Geschichte (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Comment Found this: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Capitano Searching there for "stock character" and military or soldier might have more results. Are there any college textbooks for actors and/or writers that list stock characters? Dream Focus 20:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Of the sources found by WP:LISTN.
- Now the claim of original research is serious, but can it be solved? Sure, it can, one just needs to do the work and do a proper arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Maybe those editors most annoyed by the current status would like to take it upon themselves to do this work? Daranios (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Kudos to Daranios for taking the trouble to dip into the sources that I listed. I'm not sure how far they got but, from what I saw in my browsing, all of those sources have some utility for this topic and some of them are excellent, as Daranios explains. The contrary opinions above seem worthless because they have not done this work. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Huh. You admit you haven't examined your sources? What actual "work" do you claim to have done here? WP:OR is a core content policy. You cannot just allege that unexamined sources support your claim; you must be prepared to defend each and every entry on that list with a specific inline citation carrying a verifiable page reference. You further know full well that the onus is not on editors advocating deletion to prove such references do not exist. The onus is on those advocating keeping the material to prove that they do. Ravenswing 02:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)]
- No, in these discussions, the one person who has a specific duty to conduct a detailed source search is the nominator. Per WP:AFD, "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." As the nominator does not seem to have done this, they are in no position to criticise those who have stepped into the breach. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)]
- No, in these discussions, the one person who has a specific duty to conduct a detailed source search is the nominator. Per
- Huh. You admit you haven't examined your sources? What actual "work" do you claim to have done here?
- Delete As pure WP:HEY applies if someone does manage to rewrite it properly.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete as WP:OR. Perhaps those interested in retaining the list might be interested in doing the sort of rewrite that's been suggested. Intothatdarkness 23:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Comment Another relevant secondary source: The Image of the Military Officer in Films Concerning the Vietnam War - unfortunately I cannot access it, but this other secondary source Images of War and War of Images on p. 134/136 tells us that, and lists/briefly discusses some types.
- Oh, and to all "there is nothing worth retaining opinions", please be aware that some improvements have been made since the deletion nomination. Daranios (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, Daranios has made a good start. The classical archetype of ]
- Comment List of female stock characters were merged into List of stock characters. Some references have been found for some of the entries in this list. Of course most of the entries on the other list don't have references either. Searching for the names of the examples and "stock character" might find more coverage. Dream Focus 13:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete - clearly a case of OR and and SYNTH. The assessment by Ravenswing in both the nom and in response to suggested additional "sources" are spot on. Onel5969 TT me 14:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Onel5969: Weird, did you actually read into "The Military Novel", p. 34-36, as an example? What do you think of it as a source discussing the topic? And how is Ravenswing's response to These are the 12 characters in every war movie "spot on" in light of the new evidence brought up about about that site afterwards? Daranios (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Military stock characters are certainly a thing. Which things should be on the list is an act of normal editing. I have found and added references to some things, as have others. Dream Focus 19:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge anything salvageable to WP:BEFORE. Quality issues aside this article is not a significant enough topic to require a whole article, as evidenced by the fact that there’s only like half a dozen entries and barely any sources. Dronebogus (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)]
- 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.
Stereotypes of animals
- Stereotypes of animals (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 page is a mess of
If anything, the information belongs on each animal's individual article. Geschichte (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- comment About Tyrannosaurus: I've deleted all dynos right after your nomm. As I've noted in several edit summaries, a huge lot of items were not stereotypes, but stock characters, such as fearless chipmunks of friendly wolves. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- kepp, a valid subject, whoe existence is easily verifiable. The poor state of an article is not a reason of its deletion, but for cleanup. In fact, that's what I am doing for over two years I have already deleted 75% of the article. But I am doing this in a slow pacee, giving chancde for editors to reintroduce the deleted pieces, supplied with proper citations. So far no one seriously contested my deletions, and I hope I will delete the remaining 15%:-). Lembit Staan (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - I really like this article and is WP:LISTN with sources treating this group ranging from the academic ([1] [2] [3] [4]) to the popular ([5] [6]) (First sources I grabbed but there are many). It is really such a huge topic I don't think this page will ever be much good without a massive amount of work sadly - but it's not a reason for deletion. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep "Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise". See also ]
- Keep. Concur with the above, the topic is notable and the article could use cleanup, not deletion.--Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 05:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on
Stereotypes of Lebanese people
- Stereotypes of Lebanese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vague article where Lebanese is not well distinguished from Arab. The most tangible information to be found here is that "Lebanese are perceived as pretty". Subpar referencing. Lebanon is a small country, are they really subject to widespread stereotyping, and by whom? More specifically the page may fail
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. At the very least, WP:TNT applies. The racism bit may or may not be salvageable (what people aren't considered racist by some other group?), but everything else is unsourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- 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. Shushugah's sources remain uncontested. Sandstein 21:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Vista, The Royal Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Society for the Blind
A worthy cause, but doesn't meet
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- As its been around 163 years it seems very likely that there has been coverage. It doesnt have to be online. There is a written history. Rathfelder (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment The page got wrong name. It should be The Royal Leicestershire, Rutland and Wycliffe Society for the Blind (Vista) See https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mrs-v-taruvinga-v-the-royal-leicestershire-rutland-and-wycliffe-society-for-the-blind-vista-2602671-2019, https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regId=218992&subId=0 -GorgonaJS (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SIGCOV. Research usually calls them "Royal Leicestershire Rutland and Wycliffe Society for the Blind" and a book was written specifically about them and they are mentioned extensively in the following peer reviewed journals linked:
- Seaton, Derek (1994). Light amid the shadows : the history of the Royal Leicestershire, Rutland and Wycliffe Society for the Blind, 1858-1993. Leicester: Royal Leicestershire, Rutland and Wycliffe Society for the Blind. OCLC 36346505.
- Hayward, L. M.; Burden, M. L.; Burden, A. C.; Blackledge, H.; Raymond, N. T.; Botha, J. L.; Karwatowski, W. S. S.; Duke, T.; Chang, Y. F. (2002). "What is the prevalence of visual impairment in the general and diabetic populations: are there ethnic and gender differences?". Diabetic Medicine. 19 (1): 27–34. ISSN 1464-5491.
- Robertson, N.; Burden, M. L.; Burden, A. C. (2006). "Psychological morbidity and problems of daily living in people with visual loss and diabetes: do they differ from people without diabetes?". Diabetic Medicine. 23 (10): 1110–1116. ]
- Seaton, Derek (1994). Light amid the shadows : the history of the Royal Leicestershire, Rutland and Wycliffe Society for the Blind, 1858-1993. Leicester: Royal Leicestershire, Rutland and Wycliffe Society for the Blind.
- Keep Rathfelder (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Shushugah.4meter4 (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Nabis (company)
- Nabis (company) (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 indication of notability. Advertisement of a Cannabis company. Fails
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JeepersClub (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. JeepersClub (talk) 11:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- As the author of this stub, I would like to oppose its deletion. I believe that Nabis meets the notability guideline; the company has been profiled in mainstream media such as Business Insider, Reuters, Forbes, and TechCrunch, each of which is footnoted in the stub.
- These sources provide significant coverage of the company beyond a mere trivial mention. Here are two examples: https://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickdaso/2020/11/04/nabis-raises-10m-to-take-the-cannabis-industry-to-a-new-high/?sh=ff0290a38729 (this is a journalistic news article, not sponsored content) and https://www.businessinsider.com/nabis-cofounders-california-cannabis-distributor-microsoft-facebook-engineer-2021-5.
- The second sentence of the stub says, "The company is one of the largest business-to-business distributors of cannabis in California." What makes California important? According to https://www.businessinsider.com/marijuana-cannabis-distributor-nabis-raises-23-million-series-b-california-2021-6, it's the biggest cannabis market in the U.S.
- Thank you for your consideration. FishAndChips36 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the talk) 15:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete The CSD was appropriate. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Nominator of this AfD JeepersClub is a blocked sock. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, This article has been listed three times for deletion, yet consensus remains elusive. The nominator has been blocked. The arguments I articulated, both here and on the Talk page, have not drawn a response. And I have added numbers to the article itself. It has now been more than 14 days, so I respectfully propose that the article be allowed to stand. If objections remain, the Talk page is active and available. Thank you for your consideration. FishAndChips36 (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete The company distributes beer and Italian cookies? Looks like a fake company, based on the links in the article. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, regrettably. I'm here despite strongly disagreeing with all the other "delete" !votes and wanting to !vote "keep". Given a ]
- Thanks for your candor and specifics, Sdrqaz. Whereas others assert, you explain. I appreciate that greatly. (P.S. I too was mystified by the notion of a "fake" company.) FishAndChips36 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete Not yet a notable company. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. This is a hoax. The references used don't remotely match what was in the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Country Ridge, Iowa
- Country Ridge, Iowa (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 evidence of this place's existence. Both of the refs originally in the article failed verification, and both a Google search and a search in the Iowa database of GNIS turn up nothing (the GNIS feature ID given in the article's infobox is actually the ID for Tennant, Iowa). Note that there is, apparently, a Country Ridge subdivision northwest of Cedar Rapids, but that's in Linn County and is a different place. Deor (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Mary Hicks (professor)
Don't see evidence she meets
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Outstanding Educators of America was apparently a Who's Who kind of publication in the 1970s, rather than an "award" per se. XOR'easter (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This Google Scholar search shows articles with lots of citations, although the page doesn't show an h-index. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Citations make a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1 and the Osborne award, training award, and Grove lifetime membership are all national-level recognitions counting towards #C2. Together they add up to a keep for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep. She was president of a national professional organization ("She was elected president of the Groves Conference on Marriage and Family in 1993"). Article has been improved since this discussion started. Penny Richards (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. Based on
Odd Steinar Albrigtsen
- Odd Steinar Albrigtsen (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 Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Marisa Quinn
- Marisa Quinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Potentially non notable actress. Tagged with {{notability}}
since May 2012. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: as per nom, lacks notability. --Whiteguru (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Roles do not satisfy ]
- Delete Not notable. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 03:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)]
- 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. – Joe (talk) 08:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Chuck nduka-eze
I'm not seeing how this individual meets the criteria of
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO in any event clearly states that an aggregate of references is a sufficient satisfaction of the criteria or significance for inclusion. However, I contend that there is sufficient direct reference to him and other aspects of mention in the article that satisfy the criteria on their own One of many links attached to the article clearly references him solely, for his role in representing the massacre victims. The individual is an important figure in this aspect of the war historiography https://www.sunnewsonline.com/nduka-eze-and-original-members-of-asaba-october-7/ The subject is a significant figure on the subject of representation of massacre victims, and ample reference to his role is contained in the references. The peripheral mention you cite is in respect of the Hirst case, which is not the sole basis of his inclusion. I strongly urge you to review this intended deletion He is cited significantly as Counsel to the massacre victims in links in the article, which is a highly significant role within the context of Nigerian Civil War History, of which I am a subject expert. Can I urge you once again to review the links. This article is neither promotional nor advertising. On the previous occasion, I was made aware of the deletion notice too late to respond to same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seal67 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- I have added hyperlinks to the Asaba massacre and the Oputa Panel, in which he represented victims and survivors. This was one of the most important outcomes in Nigerian Civil War history - in that a State authority was compelled to acknowledge acts of unlawful violence against civilians. The victims, and their families number in 100's of thousands and the case was reported not just broadly in the Nigerian press but also reported in several global reference texts globally. I respectfully restate that there is nothing trivial about this event or indeed the individual responsible for the outcome i.e the subject of this article
- Keep. This article clearly needs cleaning up but I think this individual is notable. I worked in Nigeria for several years, so perhaps I understand the culture better than many other editors.--Bduke (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with @Bduke on this one. While the article needs reorganization, this looks like a pretty important article so it should be kept.Dunutubble (talk) 12:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. WP:ANYBIO. While many of the other sources are interviews, they are interviews in major media outlets that further confirm that assessment.4meter4 (talk) 20:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)]
- 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) 01:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Mohammad Tiregar (Artist)
- Mohammad Tiregar (Artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 16:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- The man has starred in several international films on Netflix, and the sites of the World News Agency abc (News), Cinema Blend (News) have named him as the main actor the cast list. He also had his first acting experience in an international film about Elly directed by Asghar Farhadi (Source). Maryam CNA (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @]
- @Yeeno: There were credible sources that you tried to hide and removed a collection of information about this person from Wikipedia. (Take a look at this page).Maryam CNA (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Yeeno: You tried to delete the person's pictures 1 Link 2 from Wikimedia so that you can prove your point on the talk page. Then nominate the person to delete the page so that you can trick Wikipedia administrators into deleting the article. This is not true at all. We are all on this site to improve and help. Everything about this person is real and mentioned on the biggest movie news sites, and all of his videos have been streamed on Netflix, Even if it is not the first role. You should not delete a page by trickery. Maryam CNA (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Everything about Mohammad Tiregar is real You can see everything in this (link). Thanks Maryam CNA (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @personal attacks, and repeated violations may lead to a block.
- I have no intention of misleading you with any of my edits. Other editors, such as general notability guidelines before you make your next reply. Thank you. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 21:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)]
- @Yeeno: I did not insult you. According to Wikipedia rules, any article can be expanded and improved. I ask you to remove the delete tag so that we can improve the quality of the content by citing the source to expand this article with more resources. Thank you for replying. Maryam CNA (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @
- Delete Clearly non-notable.talk) 20:39, 15 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete fails WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete fails ]
- 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Moses Uvere
- Moses Uvere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clear sign of self-promotion with the subject himself adding content. The existing sources are all promotional or interviews save for https://hmmagazine.com/moses-uvere-never-better/. I went and did
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Promotional in tone, and does not meet ]
- Delete Not notable beyond a local hero. Oaktree b (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete (
]Press Hit Play
- Press Hit Play (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 Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NagalimNE (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - I have nominated this article for CSD since this article was created by one of User:Philippinesfan sockpuppets. The account (User:Sone generation66) was already reported and blocked via WP:SPI. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Philippinesfan. -WayKurat (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as per comments above. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete per WayKurat. CruzRamiss2002 (talk) 13:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
]That's What He Said (podcast)
Searching "That's What He Said" with a variety of keywords such as Greg James and Podcast yields almost no results. I searched Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News, Google News Archive, Newspapers.com, and the Internet Archive. The only source I found was this passing mention of the show on Kent Online. The current sources are all
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete per nom. Fails ]
- Redirect to ]
- 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. —ScottyWong— 16:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Sam Reklaw
- Sam Reklaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
First, I moved the article to draft space, but the author has moved it back to article space. Then I tagged it with A7. The subject has one credit for a pre-production Turkish film, and, as far as I can tell, is a low-level racing car driver. Unfortunately, an editor removed the tag, so here we are. Bbb23 (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, as noted. No significant claims of notability. Involvement in a future film, and some racing results - none of which look notable or particularly good (finished first! of two people). Note: there was a significant amount of black hat seo sites included as "references" on an earlier version of the article. Most have been removed, but there are likely more. I don't see any of the required disclaimers for the two single-purpose accounts that have been adding to the article, either. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that they stumbled into all of those paid placements. Kuru (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep.The subject is well known in Latin America, the UK, and Turkey
- The article is well-referenced, written, and formatted.
- The article sources as shown enough WP:GNG we can't judge notability based on the wins. There is a lot about Sportif pages here who never won anything. https://news.google.com/search?q=Sam%20Reklaw&hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aenand most of artice who talk about him (Sam Walker) are in spanish.
- The film is listed on the IMDB website https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14227658/
- And I'm here I'm the user who started the article XfD.
- As someone from the UK who lives in Latin America and follows motor sport, I can say the subject is definitely not well known in either the UK or Latin America. Richard3120 (talk) 01:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep.Actually I think people are having a hard time judging his notability because of the different name. It looks like everyone is searching "Sam Reklaw" which on google brings up recent PR mainly to do with film and little to do with racing.
People need to bear in mind that his real name is Sam Walker, and that's the name he raced under, also the races were in Latin America, so they are in Spanish. This search (google colombia) brings alot of hits and his name is in alot of them, also alot of hits on google images here What an admin mentioned above "finished first! of two people" I looked at the result and he actually finished 1st of 4 people IN CLASS. but overall 3rd out of 27. Whether that can be considered "good" or not is pretty irrelevant because we have no idea know what rules and regulations that they race under. The fact still remains that he does meet
- "The fact still remains that he does meet WP:NMOTORSPORTbecause he raced in imporant national championships".
- Delete Does not meet ]
- Remark As mention the user above the subject : Sam Reklaw | Sam Walker
- Received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. - Sam Reklaw has driven in a race in a fully professional series. A fully professional series where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series. - He has competed in a series or race of worldwide or national interest - Has been team principal for a team in a major racing series - Hold or have held a significant motorsports record, such as a land speed record.
Check the links and double-check. He is most qualified
- Delete. Fails ]
- 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Brenda Weiler
- Brenda Weiler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non-notable independent musician that fails
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - Poydoo can talk and edit 17:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - Poydoo can talk and edit 17:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. - Poydoo can talk and edit 17:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete -- does not meet required criteria. Google search offers almost nothing, besides some promotional sites.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 21:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. There is no coverage available for this particular individual to warrant a Wikipedia article. NagalimNE (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Unsourced BLP. scope_creepTalk 08:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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 13:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Shiri Spear
- Shiri Spear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Insufficient significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. JTtheOG (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. JTtheOG (talk) 08:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - There are a lot of trivial mentions, but not nearly enough in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources to show that they meet ]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination and above. Indepth coverage from ]
- 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. No prejudice against reopening.
Roy (Fire Emblem)
- Roy (Fire Emblem) (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 much as I am a fan of Fire Emblem, there are some characters who simply aren't notable, and Roy is one of them. Since my warnings were ignored/removed several times about this being non-notable, I have no choice but to nominate for AfD.
Roy is notorious for being in Smash Bros. and... well, that's kind of about it. Since his game was never localized, very few in the Western gaming press have ever analyzed his character from the standpoint of his appearances in the actual game he was in. The parts of the reception about his Smash Bros. appearances are also trivial mentions and listicles, and the reception overall is heavily
Is the stuff about his Smash Bros. appearances notable enough to mention in Fire Emblem: The Binding Blade or even Fire Emblem? Sure, but this does not merit a standalone article on Roy. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. The nominator is essentially saying that they are a fan of the Fire Emblem series, so therefore, they are in the best position to be a gatekeeper and judge what topics in this area is or isn't notable, or whether it should get a standalone article on Wikipedia or not. I note that no definite argument was ever advanced based on an analysis of whether the sources meet WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination on what the nominator thinks should be notable, and is not a valid rationale for deletion under this site's deletion policy. I also note that this page has already been reviewed by a NPP editor, so if there truly is an objectively insurmountable issue with notability or significant coverage, I'd expect this article to be redirected or AfD'd at the first instance as part of the NPP reviewer's patrol activities. Haleth (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)]
- The point of me mentioning that "I am a fan of Fire Emblem" is showing that I WANT this page to be kept, so there simply needs to be presented evidence that Roy is notable. So far that has not been shown in this AfD, only vague assertions that he's probably notable, but the sources just need to be found. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- That does not change the fact that your nomination rationale is not rooted in existing policy or guidelines, but a subjective opinion of what should be notable. AfD is for article for deletion, not article for dicussion. AfD is for when you genuinely believe that the issues with the extent of sourcing for the topic, not simply confined to what is found on the article, is insurmountable. Your claim that you want to keep this article, by nominating it for deletion, is frankly contradictory, and also WP:WHYN, there is adequate material to write a short article here. Haleth (talk) 23:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Please stop with the disruptive WP:GNG, even if I did not spell it out. My statement that "I want to keep the article" does not mean that I think this article should be kept even if it had no notability whatsoever. It was in direct response to your assertion that since I didn't like the character, I was nominating it for deletion (which is false.) ZXCVBNM (TALK) 00:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)]
- I take umbrage to your allegation that I am being disruptive. My response is directly addressing your original rationale, which specifically did not articulate an argument based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT refers to your subjective opinion that an article about the topic should not exist based on your personal experiences of the series. I note that you made a point to bring up the fact you are a fan on your own initiative, and using the same common sense principle you are asserting, that appears to be the only underlying principle expressed by your nomination rationale. I suggest that we agree to disagree, and let the community decide whether your original AfD rationale, or that your subsequent arguments should be accepted based on an appeal to our collective common sense, is justified. Haleth (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)]
- I take umbrage to your allegation that I am being disruptive. My response is directly addressing your original rationale, which specifically did not articulate an argument based on
- Please stop with the disruptive
- That does not change the fact that your nomination rationale is not rooted in existing policy or guidelines, but a subjective opinion of what should be notable. AfD is for article for deletion, not article for dicussion. AfD is for when you genuinely believe that the issues with the extent of sourcing for the topic, not simply confined to what is found on the article, is insurmountable. Your claim that you want to keep this article, by nominating it for deletion, is frankly contradictory, and also
- The point of me mentioning that "I am a fan of Fire Emblem" is showing that I WANT this page to be kept, so there simply needs to be presented evidence that Roy is notable. So far that has not been shown in this AfD, only vague assertions that he's probably notable, but the sources just need to be found. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, appears in multiple notable games and is the lead in Fire Emblem: The Binding Blade. Eulenbär (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- So what? WP:NOTINHERITED. It doesn't matter how many notable works something appears in, it has to stand up for itself - or otherwise be merged/redirected to such works. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)]
- So what?
- Keep There is a fair-sized, referenced reception section there, so this should satisfy ]
- Whether "there is a fair sized reception section" is not what we are arguing here, it is a question of the quality of the sources which are almost unilaterally trivial in nature. One cannot simply dredge up literally any mention of a character and call it ]
- @Zxcvbnm: I agree that significance cannot be built from trivial blocks. But it can be built from non-trivial information, the length of the individual sources is a secondary concern. And I'd say if a character is well or badly received and why is not trivial information because, well, that's the heart of a Reception section. And as another example, if a character is a cause for a game to be released internationally instead of only nationally, seems rather important to me, too. Daranios (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Whether "there is a fair sized reception section" is not what we are arguing here, it is a question of the quality of the sources which are almost unilaterally trivial in nature. One cannot simply dredge up literally any mention of a character and call it ]
- Comment - Some of these sources are just terrible. There's an entire half-paragraph about "sword fighter character archetypes" where the subject isn't even mentioned in two of the three sources and the last one simply lumps the character in with several others. It seems like half the rest of the reception sources are just trivial mentions from character ranking lists. This one in particular is one I would describe as absolute trash, "The only Roy we want to see in Smash is Roy Koopa Jr., the Koopaling. Who is this sad fraud supposed to be? He’s not even a turtle!" Taking a fluff joke and trying to rewrite it as a critique shows the lack of substance in this article. TTN (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - We know that there's another source that are "trash", but Roy has been cited by the multiple sources. It would definitely pass notability guidelines. 103.100.101.42 (talk) 12:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Certainly a noteworthy character. His inclusion as a fighter in the Smash Bros. series alone already makes him one of the more well-known videogame characters by default. It may well be the case that the sources on the page could be improved, but there's absolutely no way deletion would be suitable here. The Œstrogen8r...𝖙𝖊𝖑𝖑 𝖒𝖊 13:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
- Please, then, give your WP:THREE best sources that prove without a doubt that Roy is notable. Otherwise, that is just an assertion with no evidence behind it. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)]
- I apologise that I can't spare enough time to do this, but frankly the character of Roy would seem so obviously noteworthy to me that if ]
- Please, then, give your
- Keep The Shacknews and Destructoid pieces are good enough for me, so that's two satisfactory sources. I'd also like to point out that WP:THREE is an essay, not policy; all policy requires is "sources," which I believe is satisfied here. Mlb96 (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)]
- WP:THREE is an essay, but the principle behind it is a policy. While the Shacknews article is probably the one best source, the Destructoid article is a simple listing of his combat moves in a game he isn't the main character of. So if that's really the 2nd best source, it obviously doesn't pass ]
- I don't see how the use of this source is any different then this writeup, also by a Destructoid writer, which currently occupies an entire paragraph in the reception section for author's personal opinions about the characters, not the walls of gamecruft text that dominates the articles' prose? Also, Mlb96, Daranios, I have since added a couple more sources to the article and cleaned up the prose further. Let me know what you think. Haleth (talk) 08:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)]
- I don't see how the use of this source is any different then this writeup, also by a Destructoid writer, which currently occupies an entire paragraph in the reception section for
- WP:THREE is an essay, but the principle behind it is a policy. While the Shacknews article is probably the one best source, the Destructoid article is a simple listing of his combat moves in a game he isn't the main character of. So if that's really the 2nd best source, it obviously doesn't pass ]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Jumpytoo Talk 18:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to List of Fire Emblem characters or a relevant section. The reception series begins with "Roy's appearance in Melee, alongside Marth's, introduced the Fire Emblem series to players outside of Japan. It was in part because of his inclusion that Nintendo began localizing and releasing Fire Emblem games internationally, beginning with the seventh title in the series". This got me curious re the sources. [10] just mentions him in passing twice, once saying he is the main character, once mentioning his father's character.[11] mentions him seven times, but the coverage is not significant, it just confirms such a character exists and was 'new' at some point in the franchise history. [12] is even worse, which leaves [13]. That one is fine, but is Official Nintendo Magazine independent here? Most other refs are either not independent or contain passing mentions. [14] is in-depth - if we can call three or so paragraphs in-depth - but it concerns only his appearance in one game. In the end I am seeing no reliable in-depth coverage, this is just a humanoid Pokemon like a dozen we merged and redirected in the last few weeks. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- No dedicated article covering a List of Fire Emblem characters exist on Wikipedia. There is no suitable merge or redirect target since the identified sources clearly establish that the character is independently notable, though the aggregate coverage from English sources is a tad short on character analysis. That is still not an issue as the article's present content is lengthier then what we would typically consider to be stub-length. Haleth (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per above. Also, did this need to be relisted? CaptainGalaxy 15:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC
- Weak keep. With only two quality sources, this article would preferably exist within a List of Fire Emblem characters. However, in the absence of such a list and with no valid merge target; keep is a better choice over deletion.4meter4 (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- On the topic of no list or valid merge target, I believe that Fire Emblem characters as a whole aren't really notable enough to warrant creating a List of Fire Emblem characters page. Thus, I feel like merging isn't really a good option when the theoretical list wouldn't have enough coverage. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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 12:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
James Robert Hornsby
- James Robert Hornsby (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 a family history project copied from somewhere, nothing to suggest that they are
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Mostly copied from a 1917 newspaper obituary [15]. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Another obit [16]. 23:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. In addition to a possible WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabrils (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - does not meet WP:BIO. Deus et lex (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There is no support for this proposal. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
FlightGlobal
- FlightGlobal (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 to meet WP:GNG criteria for Organisation/Corporation. No notability, references are primary sourced and major WP:COI in that FlightGlobal Marketing is a major contributor of this article LukeWWF (talk) 11:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't see how article creator User:MilborneOne has a COI here (nor other editors involved in the article). This is an increasingly popular information for aerospace (see NGRAM with the rise from their 2006 foundation). There are used significantly by others as can be seen in google scholar, filtered google news (-flightglobal.com), and google books). This is one of these situations in which finding sources is made difficult by the sheer amount of sources that are citing and quoting FlightGlobal.--Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 11:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - the article creator is a Wikipedia admin and editor with decades of good standing and not in a COI as falsely claimed above. An apology is clearly warranted for that accusation. The article has third party refs and meets WP:GNG. As noted in the article, the subject of the article won a major award, so clearly notable in aviation and journalist circles. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Comment: Let's remain on topic of AfD and not the author. Being an Administrator does not nullify AfD requests from users: This is not Wikipedia policy. You will see User:MilborneOne has a lot of good contributions, but also a few deleted articles under similar procedure. LukeWWF (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Created by a Wikipedia admin who has done years of useful contributions. It Passes GNG with reliable coverage available. NagalimNE (talk) 16:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: @LukeWWF: I see you have amended your COI claim above to now indicate
major WP:COI in that FlightGlobal Marketing is a major contributor of this article
. I would like to point out that this is also false. While User:FlightGlobal Marketing made two spammy COI edits to the article when it was first started, they were immediately reverted and their current net contributions to the article are exactly nil. You can note they were also blocked from editing in 2016 due toPromotional username, promotional edits
. - Ahunt (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: @LukeWWF: I see you have amended your COI claim above to now indicate
- Comment: Correct, I updated my comment for clarity. If you conduct a LinkedIn search for staff at FlightGlobal and reference users editing this article you will see a major COI over time. MilborneOne may be the creator but he is not the COI I am referring to. I was hoping those replying to this AfD would do some due dilligence on ALL contributors. Thank you. LukeWWF (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: Please read the current actual article text - it is neutral and factual, there is no COI text there now, unlike for one day in 2016 as I noted above. There is no valid COI argument to be made for deleting this. - Ahunt (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: as originator of what is an article on a major and respected online aviation website to complement printed works from the same organisation it clearly passes notability guidleines. The COI issue has been delt with by others above. Not really relevant but of the 16 deleted articles (out of 1730 I have created in 15 years) none relate to similar organisations or websites so a bit misleading and hardly relevant. MilborneOne (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep – Major name in the aerospace media sector and owner of the established Flight International magazine. Merging FlightGlobal into Flight International wouldn't make much sense either, in case anyone was going to propose that. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep agree with all keep voters above. Webmaster862 (talk) 08:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
]Game Na Game Na!
No sources and GNG. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN where it is mentioned. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 10:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN per above --Lenticel (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Jeong Da-woon
- Jeong Da-woon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Footballer that has had an article since 2007 but only seems to have played in the semi-pro
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - fails GNG & NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete: per nomination, fails ]
- Delete, fails ]
- Delete per all of the above. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:15, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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. —ScottyWong— 17:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
2021 anti-Pakistan protests
- 2021 anti-Pakistan protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Anti Pakistan protests are common in Afghanistan, but there's no indication that anything that happened this year stands apart and this doesn't really rise to a notable level.. This is an attempt to use Wikipedia for propaganda. Saqib (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG. I agree that "Anti Pakistan protests are common in Afghanistan" but not in Iran, US, Germany, Austria, Canada, etc. over a particular reason. Shankargb (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Redirect To 2021 Afghan protests per my original edit. The article doesn't have enough to stand on it's own and this part of the larger protests in Afghanistan since the Taliban took over. The grievances of the protesters is over Pakistan's support for the Taliban not just the fact this is it's own anti-Pakistan protests. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Afghan protests are specific to Taliban rule, while anti-Pakistan protests are specific to Pakistan's interference in Afghanistan. They are different than each other. Both subjects have got significant amount of coverage, independent of each other. GenuineArt (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- The protests are taking place in Afghanistan for the reason concerning Afghanistan's latest debacle. They are not individual protests. They are part of something larger. The protests are against the Taliban and it's supporter, Pakistan. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Shankargb and also per my rationale above. GenuineArt (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete – article doesn't meet talk) 19:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- @WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Existence of sources like Al-Jazeera, SCMP, IranIntl, and other thousands of sources providing significant coverage to this subject on frequent basis easily debunks your entirely misleading misrepresentation of sources and policies. AnM2002 (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- @
@
Deleteper ]
- @Radioactive, an undisclosed paid editor, is simply misleading others as clear from his comment. AnM2002 (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Struck double vote. AnM2002 (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- @
- Delete or redirect to WP:EVENTCRITERIA. No evidence of notability. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- @WP:EVENTCRITERIA:
- Criteria 1: "
Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the
- Criteria 2: "
Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below).
": With Al-Jazeera, SCMP, Iran Intl, Hindustan Times, and many others covering the subject, this is a no-brainer. - Criteria 3: "
Events having lesser coverage or more limited scope may or may not be notable; the descriptions below provide guidance to assess the event.
": The significant coverage spanning large variety of sources is already evidenced by the present version of the article and my above explanation. - Criteria 4: "
Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
": Again, a no-brainer since the subject is getting significant coverage for months.
- Criteria 1: "
- In sum, you will benefit from actually reading WP:EVENTCRITERIA. AnM2002 (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- The coverage you're referring to refers only to the coverage of a particular protest immediately after the protest ends. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE says "]
Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article.
" Is there evidence of coverage of an event (eg protest) months after that particular event ended? I don't see that for now.VR talk 18:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)- There are many sources covering the protests apart from those mentioned for a mere idea. All of the recent events surrounding the aftermath of the ]
- The coverage you're referring to refers only to the coverage of a particular protest immediately after the protest ends.
- @
- Keep for now. Clearly distinct from 2021 Afghan protests as many of these aren't happening in Afghanistan. Also seems notable as far. Maybe the article needs a better title though. Super Ψ Dro 13:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- ]
- Keep per above. NOTNEWS does not apply because the protests are going on for more than several months. Subject is apparently more notable than many other similar protest articles that we have, like 2014 anti-war protests in Russia. ~~ Agletarang
- Keep: Prima facie meets WP:GNG. — Vaibhavafro 💬 09:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)]
*Merge I think that this should be merged into Anti-Pakistan sentiment MullahBalawar (talk) 7:25, 11 September 2021 (PTC)Strike sockpuppet. Shankargb (talk) 18:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly notable, receiving coverage for three months now. The misrepresentation of WP:EVENTCRITERIA here by delete supporters is grossly unconvincing. TheRollBoss001 (talk)
- Delete/Merge to ]
- Keep Notable and independent subject that has gained coverage independent of much newer protests limited to Afghanistan. Any suggestion for merge/delete/redirect will only WP:CENSOR the importance of this distinct subject. Shrikanthv (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep Apparently meets WP:N. I would say the nomination seems highly inaccurate even if compared with the version of that time. Abhi88iisc (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Merge with 2021 Afghan protests as outlined and explained above by VR. Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete The article cites no credible international sources about the "anti-Pakistani protests". Most of the coverage seems to be about street protests organised by Afghan nationals in India, as reported amongst Indian sources. Per 2021 Afghan protests. The rest are small, non-notable and haven't gathered much traction from the mainstream media coverage I've tried searching. Mar4d (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Utter falsehood.. Even a casual glance at WP:RS including the Al Jazeera, Asia Times, Iran International, Hindustan Times, India Today clearly demonstrating the extent of coverage that the RS have accorded to the subject, which involves vehement calls for sanctioning Pakistan for being an unrepentant patron of Talibani terrorism, and the same is not confined to one country but has steadily pervaded to almost all the continents. Hell, it even cites the Pakistani publication Dawn, and that most convincingly betrays the hollowness of your specious and misleading argument. 2409:4050:2E0A:42EE:25CD:F8DE:B4E2:5371 (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Utter falsehood.. Even a casual glance at
- Delete or redirect The ant-Pakistan protests are not focused on Pakistan. They are anti-Taliban protests with the secondary focus being Pakistan, so this article should be merged/redirected into 2021 Afghan protests. RealKnockout (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)]
- No. They started before 2021 Afghan protests which are limited to Afghanistan. "Anti-Pakistan" protests seek sanction against Pakistan while "Afghan protests" only want end of Taliban's rule. Anti-Pakistan protests can't be "secondary" to something that started much later. Shankargb (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)]
- RealKnockout, that's hogwash. RS unequivocally tells you that the Afghans protestors have unrelentingly and vehemently sought sanctions on Pakistan for its unrepentant patronship of Talibani terrorism. Frankly, your comment makes no sense. 2409:4050:2E0A:42EE:25CD:F8DE:B4E2:5371 (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Are they not isolated incidents rather than a global protest movement against Pakistan? WP:NOTNEWS exists. RealKnockout (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Not isolated but frequently covered by range of reliable sources. 2020 Libyan protests, Protests against Iraq War and thousands others were not organized by single entity either. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply here. Shankargb (talk)
- No. They started before
- Keep - Protests pre-date 2021 Afghan protests and are notable given the widespread coverage. Protests here are particularly aimed at opposing Pakistan's interference in Afghanistan. Maybe a better title is needed. Mukt (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete None of these protests received widespread coverage apart from Indian news outlets and they were all attended by Afghans and Indian citizens a non notable event and the page it full of Indian sources further reinforcing my feelings this is just some point scoring and an attempt to make an article out of nothing plus it seems the people arguing for it to be kept are from India which indicates its not notable outside of Indian circles it seems very clearly like an WP:POVFORK) of the main protest article. Himachal78 (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)]
- See WP:ASPERSIONS. It is clear that either you are misleading yourself or misleading others. No way Al-Jazeera, Radio Free Europe Radio Free Europe, Dawn and many other sources are "Indian news outlet", nor they are limited to "Indian circles". POVFORK argument is also nonsensical because there can be no other page where this content could be added to. To say that protests would have become more notable if they were not attended by non-Afghans and non-Indians is also absurd. Shankargb (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)]
- With respect you're arguments are nonsensical all of this information can be added to this WP:NOTNEWS. This is not a globally significant event even if the Indian media which is known for its propaganda, fake news and exaggerated reporting against Pakistan is trying to make it out to be the fact you took your time to reply proves to me only one group believes this deserves a separate article I believe this just boils down to petty point scoring. Only sane option is that is should be merged with the 2021 Afghan protest article or deleted. Himachal78 (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)]
- It cannot be merged to ]
- By some accounts you are known to be uncivil so I will keep it short. It is Nonsensical to even claim its censorship it needs to be merged or deleted just a pov fork and undue pushed by a certain group to satisfy their ego plus if by reliable you mean using video game footage as evidence for an airstrike? Just some friendly advice please stop littering the vote with your nonsensical messages under each Delete vote it just exposes your insecurities the outcome will be decided eventually stop harassing others with regurgitated arguments you use over and over again. Himachal78 (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- How any of these off-topic and misleading explanations justify the clear disruptive editing including the editor's reckless misrepresentation of sources ? Which "video game footage" are they even talking about ? This article has nothing to do with that. I will consider this yet another misleading remark from them as part of their broader ]
- I didn't read the above message by AnM2002 at all but I will remind all those who are frantically replying to any delete vote (including that ip account which strangely resembles a certain user) your attempts to divert and mislead are pointless the decision will be made soon lets just leave it at that I have no issue with the decision of the closing admin whether its kept or deleted or merged I gave my view that's all stop harassing delete voters please. Himachal78 (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- How any of these off-topic and misleading explanations justify the clear disruptive editing including the editor's reckless misrepresentation of sources ? Which "video game footage" are they even talking about ? This article has nothing to do with that. I will consider this yet another misleading remark from them as part of their broader ]
- With respect you're arguments are nonsensical all of this information can be added to this
- See
- Keep Article is definitely notable and verifiability is not an issue given the diversity of sources. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Article is notable, it meets WP:DIVERSE criteria —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)]
- How does WP:GEOSCOPE apply here? These are isolated protests against the Taliban with a secondary focus on Pakistan. These also will not really lead to anything much, per WP:NOTNEWS. RealKnockout (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)]
- How does
- Keep. Passes ]
- Keep: These protest are notable and provided sources are reliable. This article passes ]
- Comment: A few of the sources, such as this one (it only contains 2 references to anti-Pakistan sentiment), seem to only contain minor coverage of protests. Could someone evaluate the sources and remove sources with very minor references to anti-Pakistan protests? If we considered every protest with even a hint of anti-Pakistan sentiment relevant, this article would be an FA. RealKnockout (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I discounted the sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Abdul Hamid Khan (politician)
Non notable politician Biskut Merry (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly Talk to my owner:Online 08:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This is someone who passes WP:GNG. I think the article is more about him than the organization he leads or used to lead, Balawaristan National Front Hameed Group. At least one other group also uses the name Balawaristan National Front. The article is written from the perspective of the Pakistan government and leaves many questions unanswered, such as why he would "surrender" to Pakistan security officials. The article has a long and troubled history with abundant edit-warring. Editors may find it helpful top review the history of the article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete per nom. The entire article contains only nine sources, most of them being about his organization Balawaristan National Front, rather than himself. The sources also give very less info about the person. MeshaNigo (talk) 3:26, 9 September, 2021
- Keep or at least refactor to cover his organization. At least one of them should have an article. Johnbod (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, has received significant coverage in a variety of sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Please note that both Biskut Merry (talk · contribs) and Meshanigo (talk · contribs) are block-evading sockpuppets: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SajidMir2. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Based on sources in the article, passes ]
- 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) 🐱 09:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Holiest sites in Sunni Islam
- Holiest sites in Sunni Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources do not contain notablity regarding Sunni holy sites, for example: There's not a single source which indicates that all sites mentioned are holy in "Sunni Islam". Most of the sites mentioned here are mentioned in Holiest sites in Islam. No site, literally no site claims that these sites are holy in Sunni Islam Biskut Merry (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly Talk to my owner:Online 08:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep While this might be a POVfork, holy sites can well differ between religious divisions within a faith; as a protestant I could care less about Lourdes, but understand that certain other religious sites (e.g. Church of the Holy Sepulchre) are venerated in all major divisions of Christianity. To that end, the nomination statement appears to be too problematic to evaluate within the context of a simple AfD. We all know that the various divisions within Islam all consider Mecca holy, and I presume that as we descend in order of importance, variations within the divisions will occur. I do not think it would be wise to delete a hypothetical Holiest sites in Orthodox Christianity, for example, just because a cursory review found that much overlapped a similarly hypothetical Holiest sites in Christianity. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Recently an AfD discussion resulted in the deletion of Holiest sites in Sufi Islam. I believe this may set a precedent for deletion of this page but I am pinging the editors involved in that discussion for comment: Mccapra Apaugasma. (I was a rather strong keep in that discussion so I hope this isn't misconstrued as canvassing.) Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This makes a sense to me and is definitely not like (talk) 07:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep I agree with TheAafi that this is not like Holiest sites in Sufi Islam. The importance of this list is that it excludes sites which are only revered by Shii Muslims. Sunni sources won’t describe themselves as Sunni, but simply as Muslim, so demonstrating notability is not straightforward. There may be a case for having a single list article showing sites revered by both Sunni and Shii Muslims and putting sites only of interest to Shii Muslims in a separate section. That would avoid all this forking but that’s outside the scope of this AfD. So despite the nominator’s good faith reasoning, I think the topic of this article is certainly notable. Mccapra (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep but rename to The Prophet's Mosque in Medina, al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, to which said article should restrict itself), there is no such criterion for all the other sites mentioned in the article under discussion (nor for the ones listed in Holiest sites in Shia Islam and in Holiest sites in Islam). Reliable sources never discuss what exactly are the holiest sites in Islam apart from the main three or four (Sunni, Shia, or otherwise), and so this is not a reliable criterion. However, what are considered just "holy" sites in Sunni Islam (without any ranking) probably is an appropriate and sourceable criterion, so it would suffice to just rename the article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Apaugasma you yourself said we have an objective criteria for 3-4 holiest sites in Islam. Why not restrict the scope of this article to those sites?VR talk 10:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Also by this objective criterion do you mean the Sunni WP:POVFORK that I'd recommend merging back to Holiest sites in Islam.VR talk 10:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)]
- @create things) this confusion, and should undo it ASAP. Any article with "holiest sites" in its title should not be about anything but the historical Mecca-Medina-Jerusalem(-Damascus) series: that should be the priority, and deciding whether we want separate articles for Sunni and Shii views on this should only be a secondary concern. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)]
- @
- Comment Very good point and I’d support a rename too. Mccapra (talk) 18:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I also support the current name, as it's rather consistent to how we deal with, well, talk) 05:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Comment - Both Holiest sites in Sunni Islam and Holiest sites in Shia Islam were split from WP:LISTCRITERIAas quoted above.
- The trouble is that there actually is a sourceable concept of three or four holiest sites in Islam. In fact, our article Holiest sites in Islam started of in September 2006 as "Third holiest site in Islam", went through three monstrous AfD's (1, 2, 3), and after a lot of further discussion was eventually renamed in December 2006 to the current title (final decision here). The original topic of the article was a controversy over whether the Al-Aqsa Mosque is or is not the third holiest site in Islam. When this controversy was found to be too intractable to be the subject of an article, the renamed page inherited the word "holiest" from the original (from the sourceable 'third holiest' to the non-sourceable 'holiest in general').
- But being now a list of merely 'holy' Islamic sites, it has nothing to do anymore with the traditional Islamic concept of three or four holiest sites. Being still named that way, however, it confuses the traditional Islamic concept with the very much Wikipedian concept of generic 'holiest sites in Islam' (just see what you get when typing "holiest sites in Islam" in Google Scholar). The latter is an artefact of the deletion and move discussions of 2006, and being created by Wikipedia itself (a type of 'Frankenstein'), it has no notability at all. I say it's high past time we corrected this mistake. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 19:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep Indeed a POVFORK but still significant enough to deserve own article. Mukt (talk) 09:49, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge back into ]
- Keep, clearly a notable topic deserving of its own article.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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. As a disambiguation page. Sandstein 13:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Case knife
- Case knife (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 references at all. Appears to just be another name for a table knife. Nathanielcwm (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Nathanielcwm (talk) 04:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to table knife. Literally just an alternative name for table knife, no separate article justified. Waddles 🗩 🖉 05:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to W. R. Case & Sons Cutlery Co.. In depth internet source searches are providing nothing online in reliable sources about the notion of a case knife being "a knife that was sold in a case, as part of a set of utensils intended for use in dining". However, sources exist about case knives in reference to pocketknives produced by the W. R. Case & Sons Cutlery Co. Some source examples include:
- Collecting Case Knives. Krause Publications. 2015. 304 pages.
- Official Price Guide to Collector Knives. Random House Information Group. 2008. pp. 175–183.
- –Quote from p. 180: "The collector who specializes in knives made by W. R. Case & sons or other Case-related companies will be pleased with the extensive listing that follows."
- As such, this comes across as the most accurate redirect target. North America1000 12:51, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Redirect per NorthAmerican; their arguments for Case & Sons is convincing. I wouldn't object too heavily to table knife if the consensus moves that way, however. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)- Keep, but change to a disambiguation page, linking to Sheath knife, W. R. Case & Sons Cutlery Co., and Table knife. I looked into it further, and it seems that the use of the phrase is ambiguous; for instance, Merriam Webster considers it to mean either a sheath knife or a table knife, while Collins refers to it solely as a sheath knife. Incidentally, I am not certain of the "correct" !vote when believing that disambiguation is the correct option, and any comments clarifying, either as a response to this or on my talk page would be welcome. BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The long and confusing history of the term warrants detailed explanation. The original usage goes back to the 17th century and was not just a table knife as such knives might be used for hunting too. The knives manufactured by W. R. Case are more recent, as that business started in 1889. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and disambig: per ]
Relisting comment: If kept, in what form? As a dab or article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep & Disambiguate - The term is a valid search term, and as explained above, the fact that it can be used to refer to several different types of knives means that a simple Redirect to one of those would not be useful. Creating a disambiguation page linking to the various knives that have been referred to as a Case knife according to sources would be a much better way to direct readers. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly there is some disambiguation that needs to happen here at a minimum per BilledMammal. It's possible we could find sources to write a valid history explaining different uses of the word per Andrew Davidson. We'll let article contributors sort out the details between those two options as they locate RS for article improvement in the future.4meter4 (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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. – Joe (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Kaaitara
- Kaaitara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictitious (perhaps?) place on Nonouti or Teraina (not a populated place).--Arorae (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - fixed nomination for the nominator and transcluded to log Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:37, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. A real place, according to Kiribati's 2010 Census, but with zero population. Perhaps it should be listed as a former settlement, but remember that there are lots of ghost towns in the United States and Canada and places like Old Sarum in England that have articles. Once notable, always notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:08, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- yes, it was a real place, but we cannot keep ghost towns without any population. It is not a census place in the last census (2020).--Arorae (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, we can keep ghost towns without any population, per WP:DEGRADE. Geschichte (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2021 (UTC)]
- but there are no ghost towns in Kiribati, just former settlements whith no more inhabitants for years, and there is no NOTABILITY on this kind of places, @Geschichte:...--Arorae (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- Simply saying it isn't notable isn't a valid argument, per the guidelines set by WP:DEGRADE it is. Also, how is it not a ghost town? Does the definition of "A ghost town or alternatively deserted city or abandoned city is an abandoned village, town, or city, usually one that contains substantial visible remaining buildings and infrastructure such as roads." not fit Kaaitara? Pladica (talk) 03:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)]
- sorry to tell you that there are no roads in Teraina only paths in the bush, for pedestrians, and that the only substantial buildings may only include buia (small bungalows) that are generally moved when people do not live there. if not moved, the wood and the pandanus leaves of the buia are quickly reused elsewhere. If you can show me the remains of Kaataraina, it will be my pleasure to offer you a bottle of champagne of good quality, as I am French. @Pladica:--Arorae (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Simply saying it isn't notable isn't a valid argument, per the guidelines set by
- Do we have any sources demonstrating that it was once notable? Remember, WP:GEOLAND requires more than just verification that people lived there. –dlthewave ☎ 02:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)]
- Actually, we can keep ghost towns without any population, per
- Delete Although this does appear to be a former populated place, it's a populated place without legal recognition which would need to meet GNG per WP:GEOLAND #2. I'm open to changing my !vote if significant coverage can be found. –dlthewave ☎ 17:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)]
- How is it not legally recognized? Like Eastmain stated above, it was counted on the 2010 census. Pladica (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Pladica:. With zero (0) inhabitants in the 2010, 2015 and 2020 Census. The place doesn´t exist LEGALLY as per Constitution of Kiribati that considers only one council per atoll (Teraina council in this case). Kaainga (settlements) have no LEGAL recognition. There is no such subdivisions in Kiribati.--Arorae (talk) 12:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- How is it not legally recognized? Like Eastmain stated above, it was counted on the 2010 census. Pladica (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per ]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - The current population is 0. --RamotHacker (talk) 21:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
- That has no relationship to whether the article should be kept or deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)]
- That has no relationship to whether the article should be kept or deleted.
- Keep. Appears to have been a recognised populated place, so passes WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. I was pinged. Why I do not know, and I've turned pings off anyway. Should I close this discussion though? No, I'm not entirely convinced by the census source as I'm not familiar with the nature of Kiribati censuses. What is counted there? The coordinates are botched as well. Geschichte (talk) 20:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, as it was at one point a populated place.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Per ]
- 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 - as
]Hawaii national soccer team
- Hawaii national soccer team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This team lacks reliable sources covering it (I suggest searching with "Cristiano Scapolo"+Hawaii or "Ian Andrew Mork"+soccer). There is a claim of significance in that this team claims to be some sort of a national team, however it is a newly founded team claiming a connection to the defunct Kingdom of Hawaii. Other than the team's own website, it does not appear to have gained traction. College level teams (e.g. University of Hawaii soccer team) have more coverage. Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- I've tagged it for speedy deletion as a copyvio, but agree that otherwise Delete is the right solution here. Fram (talk) 08:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to 2022 IndyCar Series – bearing in mind that redirects are easily reversed and the article is currently entirely unsourced. – Joe (talk) 08:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
2022 Indianapolis 500
- 2022 Indianapolis 500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This fails
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Yes, unless public health reasons keep it from happening, there will be a 2022 Indianapolis 500. The article could be draftified, but I would prefer to keep it in article space until more information becomes available. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. As would I, and of course the article does need to have some external references. Rillington (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - scheduled future event almost certain to take place. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep As CRYSTAL; the 2020 edition was held without fans, so they would likely do the same (or delayed) if the health situation worsened. chatter) 22:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Redirect to WP:CRYSTAL. Given how major an event it is I think there is an argument for making an article in advance, but it can wait until the 2022 IndyCar Series has actually started and more sourcing will be available. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete - ]
- Keep: I'm in disagreeance with the above two !voters' interpretation of ]
- I don't understand how you can argue that speculation and presumed planning mean that something passes independent notability from either the Indianapolis 500 article or the 2022 IndyCar Series article until entry lists have actually been released for the event. We don't need a separate article from the general Indy 500 article to tell us that future Indy 500s will be run over 200 laps of the Indianapolis Motor Speedway on the last Sunday of May. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- I don't understand how you can argue that speculation and presumed planning mean that something passes
- Source 1 is speculation on the grid, so yes, it does cover the '22 Indy 500, but I do not believe it asserts notability. Source 2 is coverage of Johnson, not of the Indy 500, and is clearly not significant coverage. Source 2 is coverage of Carlin, not of the Indy 500, and is clearly not significant coverage. Together, they are not enough to demonstrate notability as required by ]
- Redirect to ]
- Redirect to 2022 IndyCar Series per above.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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, with no prejudice against a future merge proposal if the article proves unexpandable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Dreamtime Village
- Dreamtime Village (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 don't think this is a very notable place. The only RS discussing this place is the one NYT article linked here and the Isthmus article. wizzito | say hello! 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. wizzito | say hello! 05:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to West Lima, Wisconsin. I buy that it's not independently notable, but since there are some RS, it can be merged. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I think it is independently notable, now that the New York Times reference has been added. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - This is really more of a collective/collaborative social experiment than a geographic settlement. (Maybe the categorization needs adjusting?) I have improved the article, adding several citations SIGCOV in reliable sources. Also added a section on the publishing house they ran/run. They are the subject of several in-depth articles in newspapers and journals, and their mail art publications are in the collections of the Smithsonian Archives of American Art, MoMA, and the Minneapolis Museum of Art. The article meets notability of GNG, and can be further improved. It should be retained in the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 15:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn). ]
Shusaku opening
- Shusaku opening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PRODed with "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I have added more references, which, in my humble opinion, can prove the notability of Shusaku opening. --Neo-Jay (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- @WP:RS? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- @]
- @WP:SIGCOV ? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- @
- @]
- @
- @significant coverage". But they serve as inline citations by providing sources for specific statements in text. --Neo-Jay (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- @Neo-Jay It's fine if some do not. I interpret SIGCOV as at met if at least two sources meet it. Could you point to such sources? No need for entire books dedicated to this concept, a chapter or such would do. Few paragraphs may suffice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Thanks for your explanation. Page 78 (whole page, two paragraphs) of Rin Kaiho 2013 (footnote 2) and page 182 (whole page, two paragraphs) of Naoki Hane 2012 (footnote 7) discuss Shusaku opening. And I added a book (a volume of a book series) as further reading, the whole of which discusses Shusaku opening. Thank you.--Neo-Jay (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Neo-Jay It's fine if some do not. I interpret SIGCOV as at met if at least two sources meet it. Could you point to such sources? No need for entire books dedicated to this concept, a chapter or such would do. Few paragraphs may suffice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- @
- Keep The ]
- Keep: While the article needs to be improved, even a cursory study of go will reveal the notability of this subject. —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Withdraw. My concerns have been addressed, thank you to Neo-Jay for expansion with foreign language sources which I think we can AGF. No remaining delete votes. Good save. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Dyssynergia. ✗plicit 06:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Asynergy
The article is currently a dictionary definition, where wikt:asynergy has us covered. A search for more sources suggests this is a term that is not-much used, and typically is used in a generic sense (i.e. to mean a lack of coordination between typically coordinated things, rather than to define a particular condition). I can't find sources that really discuss the topic in enough depth that I could build the article here. Ajpolino (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to Dyssynergia, which is a more general term covering this, and does have a reasonable encyclopedic entry. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 06:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect to ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Damn Small Linux. As content has been merged, this is necessary to preserve the page history. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Hikarunix
Niche Linux distribution. AfD in 2007 makes PROD not valid, so here we go. My rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, no significant independent coverage located on a search. 2007 really was a different time, wasn't it? Look at those "keep" comments. Anarchy. 07:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, agree, this seems to have been a maybe one person project from around 2005. Sixteen years later it never met notability levels. I added half a sentence of prose to the Damn Small Linux article cited to two sources from this one, which is probably all it mwerits: a quick mention in another article. W Nowicki (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @W Nowicki In this case, maybe a redirect to the DSL article? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- That would be fine too, considering this as using the merge process instead of a pure delete. As I recall one reason for not doing an redirect (without protection at least) would be to avoid someone with an agenda from expanding it into an article again, but that is probably not going to happen since this one is so far in the past. On the other hand, the redirect would not serve much use, since a search would turn up the mention anyway. W Nowicki (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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 13:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Karim Jovian
- Karim Jovian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. None of the sources count towards WP:GNG as they're either trivial coverage, primary, or unreliable sources. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete no significant news coverage. Webmaster862 (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with
Gateway Business Africa
- Gateway Business Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Here v. PROD as a merge was boldly reverted (Courtesy @Matthew hk: and imagine this needs more discussion. I am unable to find evidence that this company meets WP:CORP. Hits are limited to press releases and merger news, but nothing significant or in depth. I don't think it's an English language issue as it was part of larger companies in the past, it just does not appear to be notable per sourcing I can find Star Mississippi 15:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 15:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I haven't saw any real PROD tag in the edit summaries. CSD A7 was in 2011 and i don't think edit summary is the good place to discuss article merge. I can't really tell the WP:NCORP notability as i haven't done google search in 2021, but at least "Gateway Business Africa" (or known as Gateway Business) is a different entity which is different from Vodacom / Vodafone . Matthew hk (talk) 20:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)]
- Probably merge to WP:NCORP or not. Matthew hk (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)]
- "comment Re PROD, I just assumed that if you disagreed with the merge, you likely also would with PROD so decided to save that step. Star Mississippi 20:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Matal (2018)
- Matal (2018) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable film, no significant coverage from
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: the article was deleted previously, see Matal (2018 film) আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
- soft deletion because the subject is currently redirecting to Matal (film).
- Current redirect ↪ Matal (film)
- Logs:
2021-08 move to → Matal (film 2018)
- --talk) 00:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Sources are not significant coverage. Delete per nominator. ~Yahya (✉) • 21:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete creative worksin an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works in addition to concise summaries of those works.
- From before the film was released, there is plenty of promotional hype by people invested in in it. Searches of the usual Google types, in English and Bengali, for coverage after the film was released, however, found only brief mentions: [24] and [25]. The film exists, but there has been no independent journalistic coverage or critical analysis of it. Does not meet WP:NFILM. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Svelte. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Sapper (application framework)
Sources on the subject are sparse and tend to be about
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Citing (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge/redirect to WP:GNG or any other relevant notability standard. Agree with nominator. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Merge per Ganesha811 ~ Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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. —ScottyWong— 17:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by length of tenure
- List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by length of tenure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Compare with
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete is just a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK from List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep The length of tenure of PMs is significant because they don't have fixed term limits like US Presidents. And so it was an issue whether Tony Blair would match Margaret Thatcher's record or whether Boris Johnson would have the shortest tenure. The topic therefore passes WP:LISTN and the worst case would be merger into something like Records of prime ministers of the United Kingdom but as the nominator is on a spree, it's best to hold the line here. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep - Andrew (above) has just shown that WP:LISTN is satisfied. Using Ecosia I also found several other sources [26], for example. SSSB (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep'per Andrew and SSSB. Whether the Canadian and US lists are or are not encyclopaedic (I'm expressing no opinion here), this topic very clearly is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- This information is already given on List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Why do we need a separate page regurgitating it? Getting quite exasperated at these kind of articles - and the keep brigades defending of them. Why should someone go to three different lists to see a pm’s age, tenure and start date when it can be and is covered in one page? Has no one heard of Occam’s razor? Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- That other list does not present the information in an accessible fashion as its list is split into three separate sections and none of them are sortable. The list in question clearly meets a need. It has existed since 2006, has been validated and worked on by hundreds of editors, serving millions of readers. What's exasperating is that a single ]
- WP:INVOLVE. Why not just edit the List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom page to make it easier to filter etc if that is the issue. Occam's razor one again! It seem untenable for WP to become trillions of bite-sized extremely narrowly focussed articles on the ground of accessibility. Surely we can give readers a little more credit. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Occam's razor ("entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity") is little more than an opinion. Have you never heard of WP:LISTN is satisfied, and as far as I can tell, a merger into the main list is not practicle (for the reasons listed by Andrew above), meaning that the common, but incorrect paraphrasing of the razor ("the simplest explanation is usually the best one.") would support having both lists. SSSB (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Occam's razor ("entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity") is little more than an opinion. Have you never heard of
- Redirect The above arguments are laughable because List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom already gives the lengths of terms, so this is an unnecessary duplicate no matter how notable the topic is. That table should be reworked to be sortable though. Merge to Records of prime ministers of the United Kingdom also works. Reywas92Talk 13:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - It doesn't really matter how notable the idea of the length of the UK Prime Minister's terms have been, since the simple fact remains that this is still a redundant fork of WP:SPLIT. A redirect could be OK, but I doubt this article title is a very likely search term. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- With over 150,000 views this year before the deletion nomination, and double that last year, it's very clear that people are looking for this exact information and that the main list is not serving their needs. Why is it not meeting their needs? Probably because the main list is not sorted nor sortable by the length of tenure, nor could it be made sortable without a complete redesign. Given that the main list is featured, consensus for such a redesign would seem unlikely at best (especially as it would mean less optimal presentation of other information contained there).
- Ultimately, while a glance at the article titles might suggest this is a redundant fork, when you actually look at the detail of the two lists it's clear that neither is actually redundant to the other. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Andrew Davidson and Thryduulf -GorgonaJS (talk) 22:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. It's only a fork if the main article has a sortable list that adds up the length of multiple terms. The way the list article is constructed it is very difficult to extract the total length of terms, which as pointed out above is something people regularly seek information on. — Jts1882 | talk 09:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge. The info can be added as a sortable column on the list.67.173.23.66 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- No it can't, or at least not without a major redesign of a featured list and as noted above consensus for that is far from guaranteed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- There's nothing preventing the list from being redesigned if the need arises. Even if it can't be made sortable, the info can still be made a column if this page is deleted.67.173.23.66 (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at the page, it seems that the list already includes each prime minster's length of tenure, which makes a separate article a bit redundant.67.173.23.66 (talk) 23:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- The list can be re-arranged if desired, but I strongly suspect that there isn't the desire to altar a featured list to increase the prominence of one relatively small (but still encyclopaedic) aspect simply because a few people Wikipedia is not paper and we don't have to limit ourselves to one list that has to include multiple compromises to do everything it can possibly do when we can have multiple lists that each do different things well. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- The list can be re-arranged if desired, but I strongly suspect that there isn't the desire to altar a featured list to increase the prominence of one relatively small (but still encyclopaedic) aspect simply because a few people
- No it can't, or at least not without a major redesign of a featured list and as noted above consensus for that is far from guaranteed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge into Records of prime ministers of the United Kingdom and/or List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. The latter article already lists each of their tenures anyway. Edge3 (talk) 05:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
The latter article already lists each of their tenures anyway.
it has been explained multiple times already why this is true but irrelevant. The former article would contain a list of the longest and shortest ~3 only and so a merge there would remove the significant majority of information from this article making the encyclopaedia less useful. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Would be not be possible to merge with other articles and presents information in a clear and easy to understand way. Bivaldian (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I love seeing how leaders' time in office compares with others over time. Axedel (talk) 00:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:INTERESTING is not considered a valid argument.2601:241:300:B610:EC54:56D:1E0F:B3A8 (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep for the reasons given by Andrew and Thryduulf. Since Prime Ministers do not have fixed terms of office, having a list that sets them out by term provides significant information about their relative political significance, in a way that a just a general list does not achieve. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Andrew and Thryduulf.4meter4 (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Thryduulf. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Andrew & Thryduulf. WP:LISTN is satisfied, and merger is not feasible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)]
- 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age
- List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- List of presidents of the United States by age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Regarding the age of U.S. presidents, the History television network has discussed at least the eight oldest. When Carter became the oldest living U.S. president (ever), which the article documents in its second table, CNN [27] and ABC [28] covered the occasion and noted his predecessor. With any comparison of age, birth and death dates are vital, and with those in office, the age on starting and ending that office is a natural addition, as is the length of life after leaving office. "Cross-categorizations "by the dozen" seems an exaggeration. —ADavidB 03:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- History channel (aka the ancient astronauts channel) isn't a particularly edifying source. The rest at best demonstrate that there is some interest (mostly from newspapers, as I can see, so this might also be a case of ]
- Delete is just a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK from List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep both List of presidents of the United States by age and List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age per ADavidB. Age comparisons within each respective set of world leaders are of high interest to Wikipedia users and these types of articles, as well as other similar statistical entries, which have been nominated at the same time as this nomination, regularly receive high views. These age statistics are not available anywhere else in such easily accessible sortable form and users would be deprived of the statistical value and interest inherent in those statistics for no reason related to improvement of Wikipedia. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- None of that supports how this still fails WP:NOTSTATS. This being "interesting to readers" (based on what?) is essentially subjective opinion (I find it entirely uninteresting trivia); and sources I could find only seem to care about the oldest person on the list (or the other extreme). That can maybe be covered in a "Records" list, if one is insistent about it; but it doesn't justify the rest. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- None of that supports how this still fails
- Keep Last year List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age received 95723 views, List of presidents of the United States by age received 2368595 views. Wikipedia users do read these articles. -GorgonaJS (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Easily passes ]
- Merge with List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom/List of presidents of the United States. These articles really don't add much that can't be handled by an "age" column on the main lists and a paragraph summarizing the records. BSMRD (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - WP:LISTN. The above list is only for US presidents. I could also habve done UK prime ministers - but I have better things to do than doing RandomCanadian's notability check for him. SSSB (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep per SSSB, Andrew and others. Very clearly meets WP:LISTN and is not redundant to any other page on the project. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep Same reasons as others.Bivaldian (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Others have given strong reasons; the largest factor to me is the overall purpose of Wikipedia. I sought out this information specifically as I was curious if Biden is the oldest president to be in office. Without this page, finding that information would have been more difficult. The main purpose of Wikipedia is easily accessible information. A quick check shows that this page has nearly 7 million views since mid-2015; it is clear that this information is sought out, that it meets Wikipedia's guidelines to remain, and is a generally useful page which should definitely not be removed and is best exhibited independently. Caleb 1223 (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge: The US president page should be merged with pages containing similar age information for other US political leaders. See the similar pages for current NBA players by age
- Keep both. Easily passes list notability per the above comments. If there are WP:OR or other concerns, there are ways to address those by simply improving the article. Mdewman6 (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep both per SSSB. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, fundamentally as it is useful to readers.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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) 02:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by tenure start
- List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by tenure start (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete is just a redundant WP:CONTENTFORK from List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy delete I'm baffled why this was made, blatant duplicate of main list. Reywas92Talk 13:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - As stated several times already, this is just a redundant fork of the main List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, only with no real sources. Redirecting would be pointless, as this would not be a likely search term. Rorshacma (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, utterly pointless. Geschichte (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate). I don't see anything worth merging to List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom since basically the only thing this list adds is the numbering, and I don't think this title would make for a useful redirect. TompaDompa (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete per the above comments. I'm honestly surprised that this article exists, since it is duplicative of List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. Edge3 (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - As noted above this is essentially duplication which serves no useful purpose. Dunarc (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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. —ScottyWong— 17:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
List of prime ministers of Canada by time in office
- List of prime ministers of Canada by time in office (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 Canada-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I see you've put a number of these types of articles up for delete. I think if the out come on those are keep (which it looks like they will be), this should be kept as well. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- How unconvincing. As for the eternal OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, unless you can show that the same circumstances that appear to apply to others apply to this, then that's irrelevant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Seems to me that this keep is more ]
- How unconvincing. As for the eternal OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, unless you can show that the same circumstances that appear to apply to others apply to this, then that's irrelevant. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge. The info can be added as a sortable column on the list.67.173.23.66 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to what, User:67.173.23.66? Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to List of prime ministers of Canada.67.173.23.66 (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the information be added now to that article now? I just cleaned up an AFD merge from 2009, where the article was redirected, but no one ever actually merged any of the material! Otherwise, it's a keep with no prejudice on a later redirect, if someone adds it. Nfitz (talk) 05:51, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to List of prime ministers of Canada.67.173.23.66 (talk) 05:17, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to what, User:67.173.23.66? Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to List of prime ministers of Canada. Edge3 (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. I love seeing how leaders' time in office compares with others over time. Axedel (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:INTERESTING is not considered a valid argument.2601:241:300:B610:EC54:56D:1E0F:B3A8 (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Merge to List of prime ministers of Canada. Abercrombiescruffy (talk) 23:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to List of prime ministers of Canada and make it a sortable column. Wiki O'Ryan (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Since Prime Ministers do not have fixed terms of office, having a list organised by term of office provides significant information about the relative political significance of the different PMs. They are inherently notable, both individually and as a group, and their relationships to each other is illustrated by a list showing terms of office. The list by time in office thus serves an informational function that a chronological list or an alphabetical list would not do. (I also think it would be difficult to produce a sortable list; I tried to do that with this list, but was defeated by the fact that some PMs served separated terms. But then, I'm not the most techno-wikipedians around, so maybe someone else, more versed in wikidom, would be able to figure it out.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per Mr Serjeant Buzfuz.4meter4 (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per the comments by Serjeant Buzfuz. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep per rationale of Mr Serjeant Buzfuz. ExRat (talk) 05:55, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep or Merge. I've come across several reliable sources recently that have evaluated Justin Trudeau's legacy in the context of how his term in office compares to other PMs: The Conversation, CBC, and Maclean's. Seems notable, in that light. If we can find a way to merge it cleanly into another page, that'd be reasonable—but I agree with Serjeant Buzfuz that it's difficult given the existence of split terms.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of mammals of Cyprus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
List of mammals of Northern Cyprus
Northern Cyprus is only recognised by 1 country (Turkey), is almost universally recognised as being a part of Cyprus, is not included in the IUCN Red List, and as a precedent, the "Mammals of Kosovo" page redirects to "Mammals of Serbia". The source used for the article is a dead link. Therefore, redirect to List of mammals of Cyprus. J0ngM0ng (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly Talk to my owner:Online 01:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect. Fails WP:NLIST, as the classification doesn't meet GNG. Further, the list itself doesn't serve any particular purpose; it is an almost-complete subset of List of mammals of Cyprus, though if someone wants to present a reason why this subset is required, I'm happy to listen. BilledMammal (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Support to redirect. – BhagyaMani (talk) 06:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect. Besides the geopolitics, Cyprus is one island around 200 km across, and all the biotic zones (mainly differentiated by elevation, not north/south east/west divide) are present on both sides of the geopolitical divide. These two articles will remain roughly the same, with differences more likely to arise due to lack of editorial oversight or lack of sources for Northern Cyprus.--Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- I will also note that the two differences in the lists (ignoring the re-ordering of whales) appear to be oversights. Wild goats appear to be on all Cyprus, and the Common bent-wing bat has been spotted in Northern Cyprus as well [36].--Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - Having a list of mammals is not a statement of sovereignty: Many subnational divisions have similar lists. Despite what you may have heard, Texas is not succeeding, despite the existence of List of mammals of Texas. --awkwafaba (📥) 11:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Regardless of the sovereignty issue, List of mammals of the United States is different (wider) than List of mammals of Texas (no polar bears, eared seals, or moose in Texas). The same is not true for Cyprus and the subset of Northern Cyprus, it's the same island, same bio zones, and the same mammals.--Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate that Texas is not succeeding. At least they're not seceding. Esculenta (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect List of mammals of Cyprus can cover the whole island without issue. Reywas92Talk 13:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. We aren't here to play splitting games with unrelated topics based on a single country's political notions. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Redirect per nom. Esculenta (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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.
Dominick Pezzulo
- Dominick Pezzulo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Dave Karnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Will Jimeno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- John McLoughlin (police officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Jason Thomas (Marine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The Legendary Ranger (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspectedcsp |username}}. |
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly Talk to my owner:Online 01:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep. This seems like a mean-spirited nomination. Each person is well documented and there is enough information to demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It seems to me there is a difference between someone entering a doomed building to rescue people and someone trying to get out. Maybe it is my view rather than the nominator's that is idiosyncratic. Never mind, journalists have written about these people partly to remark on mistakes in the film but also to provide more background information. For notability purposes it does not matter why journalists wrote about their subjects but whether what they wrote meets our criteria. I think the articles meet our criteria. Thincat (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep This man is a hero who died while trying to save his fellow officers. Ask Will Jimeno if he thinks this page should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:AE40:A5B3:89C1:4A13:48F5:2940 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: All are very clearly notable via ]
- Keep:In my humble opinion, there may be a distinction between a heroic rescuer and a lucky rescued. IF deletion must go ahead, delete the rescued as they were (happily) simply lucky - though their retention adds context to the (worth preserving) stories of the rescuers.ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: William Jimero should be kept since he is also now an author with two titles. All of them should be kept due to their notoriety. IMHO. OnePercent (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: A quick Google reveals all individuals above are notable in their own right for their roles in the timeline. Just an aside, which isn't relevant to the AfD or the final decision, but you could have picked a more respectful time to nominate these pages for deletion. Even if you had waited a week... --Jkaharper (talk) 13:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: I'd like to address John McLoughlin in particular - I came across his name in an article which in no way mentioned or addressed the aforementioned movie, and googled the name to read more about him, which led me to his Wikipedia page. Wikipedia is not a memorial, it is however a repository for information, including about people of note, and the experiences McLoughlin had make him a person of note for whom a Wikipedia page is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.200.79 (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep and note that MORE information available is preferable to LESS information, especially regarding the events surrounding 9/11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.152.172 (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep They are heroes and deserve their own page, what they did was remarkable and interesting. Nobody is stopping you from making a Wiki-page for the other 3000 people that died. 130.208.204.26 (talk) 08:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep: Considering their roles in a significantly historical event, I'd say the four articles should remain in line with WP:N. Deleting three of the articles, based exclusively on their inclusion in a film that is in turn based on extraordinary significant events, seems like a shoddy excuse to remove them. Also, the repeated use of "absolutely nothing notable" about the subjects seems a little, perhaps unintentionally, distasteful. Evilgidgit (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep I find it disgusting that you would attempt to delete this page, you should be ashamed of yourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:4901:1EB0:0:0:0:B90E (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep It is extraordinarily significant for someone to survive having not just one, but two 1,000+ foot skyscrapers fall on top of them. If anything, this provides context to the ~3,000 dead who may lack an article; survival was just that difficult. Wikipedia is about notability and this is pretty notable, considering the many articles being written about these men even two decades later. My response applies to all four proposed deletions. You could make your same (weak, in my opinion) argument for any number of 9/11 figures, and then all we'd be left with are 19 redundant articles about the same Middle Eastern loser. The event was as much an attack as it was a response, and what were essentially miracles of survival and/or people fighting back are as much a feature of the event as the attacks themselves and their inclusion is warranted here. Separately from my response to your proposal, considering the time, this was an extremely insensitive thing to do and you ought to be ashamed of yourself. Mary Samsonite (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep At least for Will Jimeno I can't see a justification to deletion. There was a large article on his life events after 9/11 that came out in a national publication (Politico) for the 20th Anniversary, and it noted he has a published book, has done motivational speaking around the country etc. It would seem he is more notable than simply a random individual who died in the collapse of the towers and has a specific fame beyond just the fact he survived the collapse. Eth19508029 (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - this whole nomination feels like it was done in bad faith, and the disregard for BLP (there's a rather large difference between "fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines" and "there is nothing notable about [person]") or WP:BEFORE. Jimeno clearly meets the GNG, having been profiled in Politico. As for the others, you could probably make the case that being portrayed in an Oliver Stone movie is evidence that person meets our notability guideline. Similarly, having received a significant national award like the 9/11 Heroes Medal of Valor also suggests notability (regardless of what one might think about some of the post-9/11 awards). Guettarda (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Comment. Note that we have deleted articles on many equally brave individuals who have been decorated for their courage in action or otherwise. I'd be interested in an explanation as to why these people are notable and the others are not. Because reading this AfD, it does seem that some sort of special case is being made for them because they were involved in the events of 9/11 and were portrayed in a film about it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, these people have clearly received plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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) 02:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Men Are Like Waffles — Women Are Like Spaghetti
- Men Are Like Waffles — Women Are Like Spaghetti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One of a range of books by these authors--this has particularly few reviews and library holdings (about 200 worldcat, which for books of this genre is very low). I have been unable to find any serious reviews in a major publiation. . DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails both WP:NBOOK. I can't even find a single review of it online. Perhaps the co-authors might merit a wiki article considering they appear to have a "body of work" on this kind of subject matter, but that remains to be seen and this book alone certainly doesn't meet Wikipedia notability thresholds for its own article. Softlavender (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete fail GNG clearly. 117.18.230.34 (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete GNG failure clone of chatter) 05:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete. I found some mention of it in this Newspapers.com article, but it's more about the concept rather than the book. Other than that the mentions seem to be more about the authors doing signings and appearances where they talk about the book. There's just not much out there that isn't primary, junk hits, or places to buy the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 22:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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. ✗plicit 06:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Ewan Urain
- Ewan Urain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails both
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. The references look good. Perhaps he passes ]
- Comment. Definitely fails FOOTY at this point (despite the disingenuous comment by the creator "created page as the player has joined the first team" - he is still solidly with the reserve squad, hasn't even been on the bench for the senior team). As above, may pass GNG due to a few articles in national media on him playing for Scotland (or being selected for the squad I should say, since they didn't bother putting him on the field on Tuesday). Crowsus (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - probably scrapes through GNG with the Scotsman article. GiantSnowman 17:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep scrapes through WP:GNG further subject is 21 years and has a ongoing career hence see little point in deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Keep - coverage from cited sources as well as One Football, AS, El Correo and La Sexta is likely enough for GNG Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - I see the issues here, but on balance I think he meets notability on level of coverage he has received. Also as a player involved with Under-21 squad, he is likely someone that people would search Wikipedia to find out more about. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Weak keep as coverage is borderline GNG and subject has potential. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, has received significant coverage from national media.Jackattack1597 (talk)
- 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. – Joe (talk) 08:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Mandy La Candy
- Mandy La Candy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Single event doesn't establish enough notability for an article.
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — IVORK Talk 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — IVORK Talk 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. — IVORK Talk 00:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Kaizenify (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not a single event. Note the range of dates on the references. Another editor, Kaizenify (talk · contribs · count), posted this as an an edit summary, and I agree: The subject is a prominent transgender in a country with hostility to LGBT and has tried to remain a voice for the community. I would remove the sentence with her former name. We generally avoid using deadnames.Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: She is not living in Nigeria. Additionally if she really is that prominent, far more detail and sourcing is required. Past articles are just a paragraph talking about her Instagram posts. Miss Sahhara is different entirely, having been the first publicly open trans-woman, being directly effected by Nigerian laws and having won awards from international modelling competitions. — IVORK Talk 03:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Doesn't seem notable. J0ngM0ng (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete I don't think she is notable. 117.18.230.34 (talk) 04:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per above comments, she is not notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:23, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. With sources like Pulse and Dailypost shows some relevance and according to WP:ANYBIO. Dfertileplain (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Comment: She doesn't meet the criteria for ]
- Delete. Fails GNG. I fail to see how she is notable. She seems to have caused some very minor press tittering in Nigeria and that's it. ExRat (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)]
- Delete fails ]
- 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.