Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 March 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< March 28	March 30 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bhag Amina Bhag

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

This film appears to fail

WP:NFILM

. Should be deleted or moved to draft until it can pass the notability requirements.

Deleted via PROD and then undeleted with no improvements to help pass the notability requirements. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough to meet
WP:NFILM Ravensfire (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Computational Engineering and Physical Modeling

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal, article created by COI editor. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet

WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by creator after edits by a SPA and themselves, but nothing addresses the lack of notability (indexing in DOAJ and GScholar is basically trivial and EBSCOhost is not particularly selective). In short, PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RK
b} 23:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any criteria by which the journal satisfies GNG or NJournals. In addition, I was unable to find a good redirect target to say a publisher or academic body. This may be a case of an article being written too soon--perhaps it will be included in selective indices at some point. But until then, we have no independent sources on which to base an article and there are seemingly no good alternatives to deletion. Hence, delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 11:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Bennett

)

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

No indication of meeting Wikipedia's general notability guidelines has been given since 2011. Completely without in-line citations, or evidence of notability outside of the show itself. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Fictional elements. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails
WP:FANCRUFT and unreferenced too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. Blakesmith11 (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. (previously tagged BLPPROD but not PROD'd) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Alex Brian Jensen

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

Fails

WP:SIGCOV. Relatively modern BLP article that has never been referenced. scope_creep^Talk 22:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only ref in the article is a database article. In a search I found only a very few passing mentions, such as match scores.Jacona (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, but Keep the additional entries pending a new AfD. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Martyr's Memorial C-Division League

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

Non-notable sports league. Primarily single sourced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only was it a non-notable sports league as per nom, the article is about the season rather than the league (I find no article for the league). The league apparently existed only for the one season. If the article was about the league rather than the season, I might possibly consider, if further information were available. Jacona (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removing my vote as this was a single-artice AfD when I started and is now something else; I have not researched the other articles. I may or may not get back to this.Jacona (talk)
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 20:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they all fail
WP:GNG. And I'm sure we deleted some Martyr's Memorial League articles before (presumably for another division), with almost unanimous support. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - I have reverted the nominator's attempt to bundle more articles into this AFD after discussions had begun and people had made their !votes. Giant Snowman 19:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tagging all users who voted before additional similar articles were added. @Jacona @GiantSnowman Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again - why are you attempting to bundle after discussion has begun, and why have you mis-used rollback in reverting my edits? Giant Snowman 21:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They should have been bundled straight away, but can't we just leave it be now? All the articles are seasons of the same tournament, so one AFD on them is sensible, and multiple AFDs is just bureaucratic. Especially as there were only 2 votes beforehand, one of those people is going to re-evaluate their vote later. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All should be deleted, but the principle remains - do not bundle after discussion has started, and do not abuse rollback to restore your botched edits. I am still waiting for an explanation and apology from @Sportsfan 1234:. Giant Snowman 09:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Close - This AfD is horribly flawed. It started as one article and in the midst of the discussion was changed to encompass 4 others, rendering all previous discussion invalid. It needs to be closed as no consensus and reopened properly.Jacona (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are articles of the same tournament with the same non notability. If people really object so much, remove them from this discussion and start a separate AFD. But
WP:NOTBURO applies here, because people are just trying to force needless bureaucracy when they are clearly very similar articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

you’re right it’s procedural. Just like not editing talk page comments after a discussion is procedural. My previous delete vote was changed behind my back to include 4 other articles I had not had a chance to look at. That’s not

WP:CIVIL Jacona (talk) 12:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You were tagged and notified that 4 other articles were added to the nomination. At this point you can change/keep your vote or explain a withdrawal of a vote. Your suggestion of closing this AFD and opening new ones is just plain a waste of time and full of bureaucracy which is not needed here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was tagged, fortunately, (not by you). If I had been off-wiki it would appear that I voted for something I hadn’t even looked at. So perhaps you could consider something other than self-righteous indignation.Jacona (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you can see, but I tagged you right above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with @Jacona: here - the conduct of @Sportsfan 1234: here, in adding FOUR other articles to the AFD after discussions had already started, and then mis-using rollback when they were reverted, is awful. I ask the closing/reviewing admin to ignore the bundled articles at this AFD. Giant Snowman 11:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ananya Wilson-Bhattacharya

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

Notability is not inheritable. Lacks

WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. References in article are not coverage on her but (lists of) articles written by her. – NJD-DE (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – NJD-DE (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – NJD-DE (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – NJD-DE (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – NJD-DE (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – NJD-DE (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I made edits to improve and I tried to find good sources, but could not, I think she's not notable. CT55555 (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is unable to satisfy
WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 11:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Fails
WP:SIGCOV. Citations show no significant coverage on the subject; they are just articles written by her. Kpddg ^(talk ^• ^contribs) 08:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I think this article should be deleted as soon as possible.Marxist-Leninist and Anti-revisionist (talk) 08:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Intelligence Providers

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

Fails

WP:NCORP. The 3 secondary sources all appear to be PR/Connected and not independent coverage Slywriter (talk) 22:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after running through the usual searches, not much found. The company still exists, but appears to have only 12 employees (per Apollo.io). I didn't find any links to news articles on their web site, and although the list of clients looks long and impressive their "white papers" read like high school assignments. The only sources I can find are articles in the
Houston Business Journal and those don't say much about the company. Lamona (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I was similarly unable to identify
ATDs come to mind, deletion is appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Holly

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

Appears to fail

WP:NGRIDIRON). Found this article on him from his high school football career, but not much else. Had 66 yards from scrimmage during his entire college football career. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This should be as straight forward as it can be. No notability from college or professional football and there's no reason to believe they're notable for being part of a minor league that hasn't started yet. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh I've left messages on the talk page of the editor creating all of these USFL articles trying to explain this, but so far they either haven't seen them or are unwilling/unable to communicate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, found this, but not much else. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage. Only routine, mostly brief and local, coverage of UDFA and subsequent roster cut from NFL team. USFL, in its current Alabama only state, is not a sign of significance.--Mvqr (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly falls short of notability guidelines for American football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per those above. GPL93 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip V. Holberton

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

Before search does not turn up significant coverage. Fails

WP:NBIO Slywriter (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, it is also a little bit

WP:PROMO Rlink2 (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Definitely Promo issues, but not worth cleaning up unless it's staying in mainspace.Slywriter (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman, we lack sources giving enough coverage. His academic positions do not rise to the level of being a notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman fails
WP:BIO.183.82.108.172 (talk) 22:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hill (footballer, born 2003)

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

This is a soccer player who plays for a team in the sixth tier of England's soccer league structure. He fails

talk) 20:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 20:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - Non-notable player. Playing in a FA Trophy match doesn't automatically make players notable, they still need the game to be played between two fully professional teams. No sources that can be added to meet
WP:GNG.— NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 21:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 05:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Govvy (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack significant coverage and only played in the lower rungs of non-professional football.--Mvqr (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails
WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - clear cut failure of GNG and
WP:NFOOTBALL Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORT. I don't see this article passing NSPORT, and probably would not have passed NFOOTBALL if it was still around, so Delete. Jacona (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - 5 games at non-league level in England is not going to give someone the kind of notability that would be required for them to have an article. Dunarc (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec mythology in popular culture

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

Similar to the previous AfD on Japanese mythology in popular culture, this is also unadulterated listcruft since its creation - a clear example farm with no context that mentions anything named after an Aztec god, regardless of whether it resembles the actual god. Fails

WP:OR, deletion-worthy. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like the recent Japanese mythology AFD mentioned in the nomination, this is an article with a potentially notable title, but whose contents are wholly inappropriate for the encyclopedia, being nothing more than a TV Tropes style list of examples that are either poorly sourced or unsourced. In addition, the bulk of the examples are either utterly non-notable, or flat out
WP:OR. While a decently sourced prose article or section in Aztec mythology would be acceptable, the current article should not remain in the main space until such a time one is created. Rorshacma (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete for failing to mention https://shadowrun.fandom.com/wiki/Aztechnology . No, seriously, delete due to failing GNG/NLIST/etc. But like observed above, this could be rewritten into a prose analysis, but (
WP:TNT), such a rewrite is unlikely to reuse anything from the current TVtrope-like list. Ping User:Uncle G, User:TompaDompa, in case either would like to add it to their to do list... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gig (music)

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

Pure dictionary definition, sourced only to the dictionary ever since its creation. See also

WP:NOTDICT. Gig worker also encompasses this idea as well making this article superfluous. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. CT55555 (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have wikitonary Rlink2 (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above editors. Zeddedm (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a dictionary, which Wikipedia is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IMiss2010 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more than just
WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, this is just one line under the dictionary definition. Jacona (talk) 10:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, not sure what this could be aside from a dictionary def page, etymology would be dictionary too so that wouldnt work.... Bgrus22 (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

31 Questions

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

article appears to be

non-notable TVHead (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Despite being a major contributor to this article, I do have concerns about the notability of this show. I certainly hadn't heard of it before I came across it in Category:2010s Australian game shows. It is a community TV show produced by university students and also uploaded to YouTube. In editing this article, I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the show, only references of the awards it was nominated for and other trivial mentions, other than primary sources.--Reader781 (talk) 07:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I have never seen or heard of this show until I found this article, but overall not very notable and Reader781 gives good reasons as to why. IMiss2010 (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Deb. CSD G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Alhemyari

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

Not particularly famous and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Mvqr (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. Mvqr (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero good sources, not notable. CT55555 (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied for about the third time today. There appears to be a competence issue here. Deb (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was expedited keep. I'm gonna be bold here and expedite this. Even when accounting for {{

spa

}} users !voting keep, participants here are overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the page. I know it's only been 2 days of the usual 7, but I think there's been a ton of input already here (plus real world stuff).

The arguments could essentially be condensed to

WP:N

), the policy-backed argument to delete is more nuanced. However, regardless, it looks near-impossible for deletion to succeed at this juncture.

There was also not insignificant support for redirecting the page (or merging, same thing), but again, the overwhelming consensus, even at this very early stage, is to retain the standalone page. Some other arguments offered in favour of deletion were:

WP:RAPID

, but more broadly as mentioned, the emphasis was placed mainly on the incident's very wide publicity (arguably, as publicized as that Oscars ceremony itself, if not more so).

I want to make it clear that I discounted quite a few keep !votes (compared to much fewer delete ones) for being subpar. For example, several users had written per above and nothing else, which I find intellectually lazy and against the spirit of

WP:NOTAVOTE. Some were just plain silly, like More popular than Jesus

(what? okay...). Though, what probably took the cake of silly was the IP who wanted to delete because "the only thing the United States can come up with this is [sic.] the slap article" (double what? what about Slap Mountain, that's in the US!).

Erm, anyway, so with all that taken into account, I feel confident enough to speedy da keep here. I think that, atm, much of whatever could be said largely already has been said. Still, if there is significant opposition to this early close, I am open to reversing it (though I'm likely to view it more as a procedural objection than anything). To reiterate, the discussion has gone on for about 2 days now. And while there's nothing inherently problematic in giving it another 5, again, I think it has seen enough participation and its overall direction is clear enough at this point to spare everyone from expending any further time and energy. Either way, thanks everyone for the civil discussion. El_C 12:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will Smith assault of Chris Rock at the Oscars

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: suspected

spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp

|username}}.

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.

)

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

Clear violation of

SPEAK 16:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: To clarify, I came up with the original title of the page (and the title it carries currently),
Will Smith–Chris Rock Oscars altercation, when I created the page merely as a redirect to the appropriate subsection of 94th Academy Awards. The page was made into an article by editors other than myself and without my consultation or knowledge. However, I do see the viability of the article per other pages that chronicle unprecedented moments on live television, most notably Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy. Wikipedia may not be a newspaper, but this incident is not going away; it will be remembered for years to come and has in under 48 hours become arguably the most talked about subject in this country and others.–RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 16:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

"bu this incident is not going away; it will be remembered for years to come and has in under 48 hours become arguably the most talked about subject in this country and others" is all

SPEAK 16:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This was a comment, not a vote to keep, delete, or merge; “this incident is not going away” was merely an observation based on the way popular culture comports itself and how, especially in the age of social media, controversies like this can be magnified and multiplied and reach audiences that would not otherwise know about them. I am aware there was no specific policy cited; admittedly I am not good at arguing the nuances of specific policies and that is why my statement was purely a comment and not a vote one way or another. RedSoxFan274 _{(talk~contribs)} 16:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unnecessary fork. The key points are already covered in the
(CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Agreement. Definitely a noteworthy issue, but in a similar vein to the La La Land and Moonlight debacle, that was in the cultural zeitgeist for a few days before it diminished and is now perfectly situated in the redirect.

However, I may be compelled to change my opinion if the ramifications of the issue prolong for at least another week. Given the recent news of the Oscars planning on taking action, I believe that my opinion is likely to change soon. Deathbydeathstroke (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actions that still related to the AMPAS and that the 94th Academy Awards article is already covering. This is why
(CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, because this video meme will live on forever. Millions of animated GIFs on social media. Covered all around the world in good sources.Maria Gemmi (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
(CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
How is this against the purpose of Wikipedia? Shouldn't Wikipedia document everything that is famous? Maria Gemmi (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No.
(CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia does not document everything that is famous, but it does document events that receive significant coverage in independent
reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
And it is perfectly documented at
(CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Disagree, as there are details here that would overwhelm that article. 331dot (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should reread both articles. The only differences are that: this article includes the whole conversation and that it develops on tangential information that was taken from many other pages (i.e., the background, Will Smith, the 89th Academy Awards, etc.). When people attempt to argument that
(CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree. Apart from that most of the other information in this article have either a political background by the writer or are just generally useless knowledge ("Anit-Biden Memes", "right wing political commentators like Ben Shapiro", "lawmakers like Andy Biggs" - are you kidding me?)

Do we need the reaction of every single more or less prominent person out there? It's important to catch different opinions, but we don't need the comments of 40 different people on a topic. If you want those opinions from a specific person, research it yourself and don't trash Wikipedia with it. SumriseHD (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed some of the excessive detail w/r/t the political aspects. As someone from outside the US, this seemed cherry-picked to promote a particular point of view. Some of the sources were not unreliable per se, but the way they were selected and editorialised by Wikipedians seemed to be
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Agreed. This incident will have a lasting place in meme history, and it therefore the article is valid. Yobbin (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is Wikipedia, not https://knowyourmeme.com. SumriseHD (talk) 22:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To comment on this thread: Yes, Wikipedia is NOT KnowYourMeme nor a meme respiratory, nor is it a gossip journal. It's an encyclopedia at heart, but in some ways, it has grown to cover more than just an encyclopedia with its coverage of the most notable internet memes (think Rickrolling and Pepe the Frog). This is just me, but I think of Wikipedia as more of a gateway to the rest of the internet. If you want to continue to read current events, head to BBC or CBS News; to read about a certain fandom, head to Wikia; for more nerdy and academic stuff, head to Citizendium; and for the motherload of memes, head to KnowYourMeme. I would suggest that even though this is a bit of a current event, unless no action is taken or AMPAS doesn't do anything drastic, it should remain given its status in popular culture, its coverage whose degree has even temporarily eclipsed the war in Ukraine, and the ongoing Will vs. Chris debate on the internet, not to mention the hundreds of notable and reliable sources covering "the slap heard 'round the world". InvadingInvader (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's things like
Adele Dazeem" (notice that this is a redirect) this year—but those don't have articles. We don't decide everything that has a lot of coverage is notable, otherwise we'd have dedicated articles for things like Retirement of Tom Brady. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 04:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep: The title for this article was quickly reverted. As for the incident in itself, I would say that it is already notable in itself. There is precedent for this at the article for the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, although similar incidents such as Kanye West at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards and the Moonlight/La La Land best picture mix-up do not exist. Painting17 (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See, unlike the others mentioned, the Super Bowl controversy actually had serious ramifications. If you look at the history, a lot of broadcasting rules were changed as a result. Meanwhile, the other two you mentioned were pretty much just media gossip. I personally think that unless this has serious ramifications to the level of the super bowl incident, then it should have a article. At this point, that seems unlikely. Sea Cow (talk) 03:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the incident has since become a major piece of news sometimes even eclipsing the war in Ukraine. Given the amount of reactions to the incident and the debate surrounding "Will vs Chris", it should be that this page is kept. If it ends up being deleted, though, the article as is should be completely merged into and expanded within the 94th Oscars article. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major incident and deserves its own article. --Nyescum (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is notable by itself and most coverage related to the Oscar ceremony as a whole is about this, not the Oscars themselves. This sort of disruption is rare at this event. This would overwhelm the article about the Oscars if it were merged. 331dot (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No title change is needed unless Will Smith decides to assault Chris Rock at a future Oscars ceremony. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@
(CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm not sure I agree with the premise of your question that this is a "fork". 331dot (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking.

What is a fork?

Copying all or part of Wikipedia, and developing it independently of the original, is forking.

You can disagree with my premise, but not with the concept.

(CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see how

WP:NOTNEWS applies. This is not an original news report, not written as a news report, and is not celebrity gossip. RECENTISM would apply to the war in Ukraine, but we talk about that. 331dot (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Once again, feel free to argument from policies and guidelines, not from what you feel.

(CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Nothing I have said is based on what I feel, but based on the significant coverage in independent reliable sources, which show that this particular aspect of the Oscars is

notable by itself, just as the Super Bowl haltime show incidents are. 331dot (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@
WP:GNG, specifically "Significant Coverage". Given the amount of coverage that this has received, and given the YouTube record that was broken by The Guardian covering the uncensored version of the incident, and how AMPAS has not resolved the incident completely, I argue the GNG supports this article's inclusion, at least until if AMPAS drops its investigation InvadingInvader (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: Simply because this incident went so massively viral so fast all over the world and has inspired so much debate and discussion and so many responses to it. I honestly believe this incident will be remembered for years to come and thus its article should be retained. After all, this wasn't just a typical celebrity scandal, it was a globally-renowned superstar actor with a largely positive reputation assaulting a host on live TV at a major annual awards ceremony. It was really sudden and shocking and changed how a lot of people view Will Smith overnight. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The three paragraphs about the incident currently present at 94th Academy Awards seems to adequately cover the topic as much as is needed on Wikipedia, and doesn't take up an undue amount of the article. I could be open to changing my mind if there are further developments, but Smith has apologized and there's no reason to think there will be much more to this incident. Orser67 (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Orser67:AMPAS is currently investigating; if no further developments are made or if AMPAS does nothing, I would support merging the article in, but until then and/or if AMPAS takes more drastic actions, I would keep for now. InvadingInvader (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I'm not gonna lose sleep over the article being deleted, but I feel the nature of the incident (an on-screen physical assault) separates it from similar incidents enough to be notable for its own article. JellyMan9001 (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because Will Smith is a notable figure and so are his public actions. Furthermore, the Academy Awards are watched by millions of people around the world, so what happens at them is notable as well, especially if there is some form of an assault taking place. Considering the just scrutiny in Hollywood over individuals like Harvey Weinstein and Roman Polanski, it is of public interest to keep this page with regards to Smith's actions — Smith's actions are unprecedented at the Academy Awards. If this page were to be deleted, I recommend moving most of this information to the Will Smith article since there already is a subsection dedicated to this incident within his article.Moviebuff323 (talk) 17:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons provided above by User:331dot, User:JellyMan9001, etc. Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is better covered at the Oscar ceremony article. While this has received a lot of coverage, this is unlikely to be
WP:SUSTAINED, a key criterion for notable topics. Many of the keep votes ignore Wikipedia policies, so therefore the close should not just be based on vote counts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:GNG is met. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

"Unlikely"? Based on what? We already know that this is going to continue to receive coverage as the Academy tries to decide on a decision. If anyone is ignoring Wikipedia policy, it's you, as your !vote is based purely off of speculation about what will or will not happen in the future. And speculation that runs contrary to the overwhelming amount of evidence, at that. Mlb96 (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The incident is notable enough for an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSecondComing10 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is very well known, received significant media coverage and other reasons mentioned above. 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I do believe the 94th Academy Awards article does a good job, you can’t say it’s not news. It is news. International news. If George H. W. Bush’s dislike of broccoli can have an article, I don’t see why one of the biggest pop culture moments of the decade so far can’t either. Especially that this is an unprecedented moment in Academy Awards history. Trillfendi (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
talk) 18:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Article well sourced, per Moviebuff323 and I do think it's notable enough to be its own article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Recentism Mardetanha (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nah coz like don’t violate and take ongoing events away. Seeing this as the youth would encourage and popularize Wikipedia further. TapticInfo (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I Beg Everyone To KEEP To all the Wikipedians reading this, I plead that we keep this article due to just the relevance within the youth and its insane popularity generating numerous memes about it. It should be something that we can all look back on even on a site like Wikipedia. TapticInfo (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 21:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's the most viewed video in 24 hours, that's pretty monumental. Baby shark has a wikipedia page about it. Why not this? It's way more influential too. Helpingpeopleyay (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Recentism everything that needs to be said can be said in the awards ceremony article MrMarmite (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(
WP:RECENTISM definitely applies here. If larger, long-term consequences become evident (as with the Super Bowl controversy article), then perhaps it should be split off. Ovinus (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This event is more notable than the 94th Academy Awards it happened at. All the "delete" arguments above can be used to merge all of Category:Academy Awards ceremonies into a single article, but of course we don't do that. The event made headlines, triggered discussions about insult comedy and violence and it's well sourced. This isn't "recentism". Do you remember the 76th Academy Awards or the 79th Academy Awards? What lasting influence did those have? Exactly, that's more "recentism" than this is. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 19:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excepting that every ceremony is unique on its own and we don't create separated articles on each of their

(CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It's the most viewed video in 24 hours, baby shark has a page, that was a meme. Jhonny johnny yes papa is a meme and has a page about it. Why not this? It's historical anyway. Helpingpeopleyay (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:NOTNEWS. If we had articles for every time a celebrity says or does something, we'd become a gossip site rather than an encyclopaedia. I don't think that's what we're after here. Helen(💬📖) 19:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Will Smith slapping Chris Rock is not gossip because it happened on live television and was later confirmed by multiple outlets, including the AMPAS, that the event was not scripted. Gossip is more like hearsay, which this is not. This incident is no different than the 2004 Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, which has its own article. Moviebuff323 (talk) 22:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need to trash Wikipedia with useless articles that could be easily embedded in other articles which in this case would also make it easier to find, as the title currently doesn't even include the year of the Oscars.

The important information is easily put into 3-4 paragraphs. Nobody wants to know about "right wing political commentators" and "Anti-Biden Memes" on Twitter and how many views some videos by the Guardian got. We also don't need everybody who commented about this in the article. There are nearly 20 people linked in the article. Nobody cares. Wikipedia is NOT a sensationalist tabloid, the Super Bowl controversy shouldn't have an article either and two wrongs don't make a right. SumriseHD (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the information in this article, condensed into 3-4 paragraphs, embedded in other articles would make it easier to find. If that were the final decision rendered here, my recommendation would be to embed the information in the
WP:RAPID, we should not rush to delete this article because the future implications of it upon the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) could be farther reaching. It's too soon to tell. We must wait to see what happens because the consequences are still unfolding.^[1] MovieBuff (talk) 01:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
In support of my last point above, David Rubin, the AMPAS President, issued a subsequent letter to Academy members this evening, noting that the official process would "take a few weeks" to determine an appropriate action for Smith.^[2] MovieBuff (talk) 06:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Allow time for the notability of the event to emerge per
WP:GNG. RoanokeVirginia (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Although it is on recent news, and could we do now if it will become something like WP:Recentism, it did bring up questions in the news. The questions being: Was what Chris Rock said scripted or Chris Rock just came up with what he said on stage? Apparently it was not and this was something that was not staged and Chris Rock got actually slapped live on television. ^[3]^[4] Further more, there are people saying that this incident might actually put a dent on whether or not Will Smith get any Academy Awards in the future,^[5] as the Academy is taking it very seriously and has already condemned Smith and started and investigation on the incident.^[6] It also started to cause one-liners and comedians to start to worry due to the incident that was caught live.^[7] Because of the nature of this, I do not think this is something that will be forgotten within a week or month, especially due to the other criticism the 94th Academy Awards have, this incident would be repeatedly revived in some way or another. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 19:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BIG KEEP NOW ... Its now not going to go away Political people apparently want to use the incident to their advantage, with some being right-wingers and MTG even rooting for what Smith did. ^[8] Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update Apparently the incident would probably be remembered not for the event itself, or what poltical pundits say, but rather how it would affect the commedy industry in the future. This can be clearly seen in the video segment after the slap, on this article page:^[9] Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 22:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As has been stated above, this is obviously too early to decide that it's already notable enough for its own article. Whether that notability proves out will be decided in due time, at which point the article may be recreated, but for now this does not meet WP's standards. And comparing this to the Super Bowl Halftime Show incident article is silly given that article was started right after the incident back in 2004, and WP standards have changed drastically since that time. QuietHere (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An obviously notable event in Hollywood/entertainment world with significant ink spilled over it in reliable, hefty sources. Arguments citing
WP:NOTNEWS, per usual, appear to have no clue what that poorly-named policy means. We exclude routine and original coverage, not noteworthy (newsworthy) events. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Weak keep The event has proven to be extremely notable, at least for the time being. Will it be remembered for years to come? Probably not. But I think it deserves to stay just for the sheer amount of media coverage it got, along with how far it spread by word of mouth. Nearly everyone I've interacted with in the past few days has talked about it. That's not something that happens very often. Aluminite (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's too early to decide, we should keep this until the right time, not get rid of it and recreate it later. 331dot (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alexis Jazz. The most notable event in the history of the Academy Awards. 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Was inarguably more discussed than
Lady Gaga's meat dress? Complaining about this being separate from the 94th article? Why does every single Simpsons episode have a page? The Guardian broke a record on YouTube with this one and many critics working for reliable sources support the idea that this was one of the, if not the most awkward moment in television history. At the very least wait and see for a few months before knowing for sure whether it's notable or not. The 2019 Wuhan pneumonia outbreak was arguably not notable enough at the time of its creation, until it became one of the largest articles on the website. If it's about how bad or how realistically crucial the topic is, 9/11 was more notable for being the turning point in the American people's attitudes and laws, safety, ways of life, etc, rather than the amount of people who were physically permanently damaged or lost from it, which were fewer than the Indian earthquake that same year. Really, these are just random examples of how the situation can look entirely different from another view and oftentimes what carries the topic most in discussion is cultural relevance/prevalence and legacy. This is something that could've ruined(/could ruin?) Will Smith's career, one of the most globally acclaimed actors of all time. It is absolutely not just gossip as numerous reliable sources have written about it, and you can observe that from digging online for just ten minutes or so that enough have done so to warrant a separate article, especially when the information for this one would "overbear" the 94th article like some other voters have said. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 20:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
This is as notable as 9/11. Awesome! (I know you didn't say it, but this is the level of discussion at this point).
(CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Emphasis on "these are just random examples of how the situation can look entirely different from another view and oftentimes what carries the topic most in discussion is cultural relevance/prevalence and legacy." Whether what I said about 9/11 was rambunctious or not, (and it was) consider everything else and move on. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument does not reflect an understanding of what notability is. Notability is established by reliable source coverage. Here, it is substantial. That is the only relevant factor, not personal opinions or predictions. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Emphasis on "It is absolutely not just gossip as numerous reliable sources have written about it, and you can observe that from digging online for just ten minutes or so that enough have done so to warrant a separate article." and "Many critics working for reliable sources support the idea that this was one of the, if not the most awkward moment in television history," the latter of which can be found with just a look at the references. It's not like unreliable sources are very welcome there on an average article, anyway, right? Think of it that way. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch: Nice strawmanism. Not only is nobody comparing Smith slapping Rock to a terrorist event which killed nearly 3,000 people, but that is not even the point of what they were trying to say. Cheers! Fake scientist 8000 21:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
(CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: the incident has taken a life of its own, separate from the 94th Oscars. People will be talking about this for years to come. Yekshemesh (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:TOOSOON. ––FormalDude talk 21:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per above. This incident passes GNG and has achieved notability independent of the 94th Academy Awards. Davey2116 (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indisputably notable. Tons of reporting from various reliable sources. Internetronic (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and maybe redirect to 94th Academy Awards) per WP:NOTNEWS. We don't need a WP:CFORK of something that happened at a ceremony that already has its own page (and covers this event there). A whole separate page's worth feels like undue weight. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY KEEP PER ABOVE. VERY NOTABLE. Urbanracer34 (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hoping the closer is able to ignore the pile on of keep !votes that are entirely unjustified. ––FormalDude talk 21:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How's that? Their views should be discounted because you don't agree? 331dot (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, their views should be discounted because they're not justified. As I said. "VERY NOTABLE" is not a justification for keeping an article, especially in this context. ––FormalDude talk 23:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I think the other viewpoint should be discounted as it's not justified. So there you are. 331dot (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I justified my comment with a policy, but go off. ––FormalDude talk 23:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As did I, and I also discussed the other argument. I'm happy to disagree, but nothing should be discounted. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never said your comment should be discounted. I said the unjustified ones should be. ––FormalDude talk 23:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What part of
WP:NEVENT? If so, those are the guidelines you should be citing. Saying "Redirect per WP:TOOSOON" without any justification isn't much better than saying "Keep per WP:N". Elli (talk | contribs) 23:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This is clearly a notable event with enduring press coverage. This incident will be remembered for years to come, unlike events from most other recent ceremonies. Barney1995 (talk) 22:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is clearly a notable incident with lots of information on. A good example of precedence: the article "Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy" which too is about a very short, couple-second incident during a larger broadcast (Super Bowl, Oscars) that became a major cultural moment on its own. Holidayruin (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- should we decide in six months that this article really is a symptom of
There's no deadline. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per above we should to be keep this article also is clearly notable event. HurricaneEdgar 23:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics. Currently the consensus seems to be making about 28 separate positions for KEEP, and about 8 for DELETE (with or without redirect to Academy Awards article); that's roughly 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 to keep the new article. The daily page count spike for "Will Smith" biography article was at about 1.5 million page views yesterday, assuming that the daily page count spike for this new article today might resemble that once it is posted. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well this was quite the conversation starter! @
WP:NOR there. With all this in mind, I won't swing my vote either way, but I will watch with interest; this is a great case study in how Wikipedia responds to viral events as our lives become increasingly online. Neegzistuoja (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep -- unimportant shenanigans it may be, but it's notable; Better to cover it here than let it overwhelm the Smith BLP or the article on the ceremony. Feoffer (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the caveat that notability should be reevaluated in ~6 months. Covering this event in the full depth it deserves would be
WP:CRYSTALBALL is about. This event has already happened and details about it are verifiable through reliable sources. If this turns out to not have significant lasting notability, then redirecting after the news flurry has passed will be non-controversial and clearly the right choice, but as of now not keeping this would be to do our readers a disservice. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep, per above.Valkyrie Red (talk) 23:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this nomination is invalid, because the link to the page to be deleted is a redirect to the actual page. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that doesn't matter. We uphold the spirit of the law, not the letter of it. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above.
(talk) 00:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. As others have mentioned, the 94th Academy Awards article and Will Smith's biography already cover the important details. — Preceding
TwainNeverSaidThat (talk • contribs) 00:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Keep per above comments. This incident most definitely meets notability criteria.Spilia4 (talk) 00:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge with the existing section under the 94th Academy Awards page. Already covered extensively there and under the relevant people's personal pages. bachwiz18 (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Kid Ad's allegation does not consider proportion, balance or due weight. Per
WP:RECENTISM, "Over-use of recent material does not by itself mean that an article should be deleted." Is anyone asking if this topic is of lasting importance? Of course not. This Afd request has no merit. Kire1975 (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Strong Delete: As mentioned before, there is no need for an entire article about a moment that lasted 30 seconds and will be forgotten relatively quickly. It is already adequately covered at
talk) 00:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Agreed with the violations of
WP:RECENTISM. The write up on the main oscars is plenty concerning the event, I see no positives that this article provides that is not already articulated there.Yeoutie (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep as it's a bit long for the main Oscars article, with nothing obvious to be removed.
talk) 01:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: The Oscars are a widely watched event globally, and this assault is unprecedented. There are many reliable sources that provide reliable information, and the information is too big to be all included in the Oscars page itself. 2A00:23C8:4384:FB00:11AC:AD70:5A27:A8F (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable event with major consequences in the aftermath. Provides incident in further detail than the articles of the event and involved subjects. DrewieStewie (talk) 01:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the section. Imo, it should be proven it isn't RECENTISM before it's split. There's no current reason for the split. Everything of relevance in this article is already covered at the main, everything else is just minutiae, overdetail, and cruft. If there is lasting significance for this, recreate it in six months rather than the other way around. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 01:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of comments to the effect of "it would be undue at the main article" but no actual pointing to what in the dedicated article isn't adequately covered at the Awards article; we don't need to list everyone who reacted, this article spends WAY too much time analyzing why people thought it was scripted (that is
predicting that this will become important in the future, an applying CRYSTAL in the reverse of what it should be; the onus is on the article to prove that this HAS lasting significance at this time. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 18:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to main oscars page, IF no serious repurcussions. I currently see this article as failing
WP:SUSTAINED.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sea Cow (talk • contribs
)

Redirect to the main Oscars article because it's already covered there, and doesn't meet the requirements for
WP:NOTNEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Visualman (talk • contribs) 01:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Nothing else from the ceremony received as much attention as this, let alone any ceremony from the past decade or so. --Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable, well sourced, and the article is already big enough that it doesn't make sense to merge, seems better to have as it's own article imo. Mike989 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes GNG.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most notable Oscars incidents ever. X-Editor (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The incident is very notable and deserves to have its own article. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👻👻) 03:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of lasting significance. The incident can be (and is) covered in the relevant Academy Awards article. WWGB (talk) 03:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The incident seems notable now, but there are plenty of comparable controversies that do not have their own article. For an Oscars example: #OscarsSoWhite was a major deal at the Oscars seven years ago, but it's now just a subsection of that ceremony's article. Or how about announcing the wrong Best Picture winner? That was a major SNAFU, but now, that's also a subsection of a Oscars ceremony article. For a celebrity dispute at an awards show, remember Kanye West interrupting Taylor Swift? Also a subsection, not a standalone article. There are plenty of incidents that felt momentous at the time but faded, and this seems most similar to those. The only similar case of a celebrity controversy at a live event might be the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, and that had a major impact beyond just the involved celebrities – it shaped public attitudes, led to broadcasting changes, and even changed the public lexicon. This incident has failed to demonstrate that level of significance, and therefore, I think we should follow precedent set by the other examples and keep the discussion of the incident at the 94th Academy Awards article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're right, then why not revisit this in six months? Right now, we can't know if this is something worthy of an article or not, and we won't know until we have some benefit of hindsight. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. A topic should demonstrate lasting notability before an article is created about it, not the other way around. Otherwise, you could justify any article – for instance, I might be notable one day, so should we have an article written about me now? (A bit of an extreme example, yes, but it's to show why flipping the requirements is bad.) And it's not like the sources are going to vanish in that time, right? If, in six months, the topic is still notable, it could be recreated then. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

If we're not sure whether the topic will have sustained notability,
WP:Crystal requires that we should retain the article, not make the assumption that the current level of notability will not be sustained. The burden of proof is on the nominator. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 10:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Where at
WP:SUSTAINED: "Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability" (emphasis in original). As I interpret it, this means that the sustained notability must be demonstrated first, before an article's creation. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

My argument is that we shouldn't assume that the current flurry of coverage will disappear, and to do so requires that we act as a crystal ball. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 20:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RunningTiger123, as for Kanye West interrupting Taylor Swift, if there's more that could be written about that (with sources) beyond what's in the section to create a substantial article, I'd say that one should qualify for its own article as well. Same for OscarsSoWhite, really, possibly even more so. Wikipedia may not be a newspaper (that's Wikinews), but it is as much a historical record as an encyclopedia. Having been largely forgotten at some point does not matter, everything and everyone will be forgotten at some point. Announcing the wrong Best Picture winner was just a case of human error. There isn't much more to say about that beyond what the section already says. That incident didn't feel "momentous" either, not even at the time. A major fuckup, but as the saying goes, shit happens. @RunningTiger123: a bad example indeed. Many people believe this incident is notable while nobody believes you are. As a general rule: in case of doubt, there is literally no downside to just leaving something up and (if still believed to be needed by then) revisit it after the dust has settled. We are not restricted by paper pages and gallons of ink. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should clarify what I meant by my latter example – my point was that arguing that a topic might have sustained notability in the future, instead of showing sustained notability already, is not a precedent I want to set. As to the "general rule" that leaving something up is the right move... is there a policy to support that? (There easily could be, but I've never seen one.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a pin in it is also a valid outcome. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep As previously stated, it passes GNG and has achieved notability independent of the awards ceremony itself. Willsteve2000(talk) 21:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC) 04:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Anonymouseditor2k19. Schierbecker (talk) 04:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per
WP:GNG, has received more than enough reliable media coverage to attain notability in its own right, and shows strong potential for continued coverage and lasting relevance. As others have suggested, it can be revisited in about six months to better guage the latter of the points I've listed, but for the time being it's a keeper.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I think that this is notable enough, due to the amount of coverage it (sorry have got to go now, will finish this later) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraminxsolver (talk • contribs) 05:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was a huge culutral moment, getting hundreds of millions of views across the internet. It also started tons of diffrent dicussions about the implicet meaning behind the events that transpired and why. There's also a factor of race, that being a instance of violence between two famous Black men with mostly white people commenting on it. Overall it was a big incident that was seen immediantly around the world and started an appropriate level of dicussion. Gordfather69 (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is like More popular than Jesus. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear example of WP:Recentism. Everything can be said on the page about the 94th Academy Awards. NotImmutable (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very encouraging to see that users with 6 edits already have a strong opinion about Wikipedia policies. Just sayin', you don't see that a lot. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 07:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of the surprising and rarest incidents in the history of Academy. Hence reaching it out to people in the future is necessary. Souryadeep630 (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Nominate the article a few weeks later and see what happens. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 94th Academy Awards. We can improve the description on the Will Smith-Chris Rock altercation section, but for now, I don't think an article is inherently necessary. The7Guy (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keep it provides
WP:EVENT. We can't ignore extensive coverage of resources, everyone is talking about it. 3000MAX (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - This was one of the most notable and widely-covered things to have happened in recent Oscar history. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 08:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Netural: While I am not a fan of the article, its inclusion or removal isn't a problem in my opinion. I do want to say that I do not agree that this is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. For the first part of WP:NOTNEWS, this isn't original reporting nor a primary source. For the second part and the one that needs to be focused on, it should be clear that this wasn't a routine event. You had one person physically strike another person during a ceremony, all of which are already notable. Numerous parties have had to release statements about the incident:
the police department with jurisdiction, and the main person involved. There is a current investigation into the incident to see if repercussions are needed and modified images of the event itself are being reported on. The article in not a news report. Finally, parts three and four are respectively about articles on individuals in an event and about the biography of an individual's article, neither of which matter here. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

(Side-note for
that it is consistent and precise, I don't believe that such a move is needed. -- Super Goku V (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom and redirect to the academy award page. Clear content fork and within a month like most furore will be forgotten. Probably will be a snow keep because of the pile on comments, then quietly deleted in a year's time when they have moved on to the next shiny thing. W C M_email 08:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Amount of independent commentary and media coverage, especially as a particular contender for list of "most infamous" Oscars incidents, would seem to grant this lasting notability in its own right. 82.15.196.46 (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Will Smith-Chris Rock slapping altercation has become a big piece of news. It's become quite famous. I believe we should keep it because it's one of the most famous articles as of March 2022. Magik 3099 (talk) 10:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 94th Academy Awards and have a subsection. It reminds me of the Kanye/Taylor Swift incident, which is just referenced in 2009 MTV Video Music Awards. No need for a standalone article. RoyalObserver (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the situation here is different. What Kanye did was wrong and attention-seeking but he wasn't physically violent. Also, this was considerably more shocking because it was Will Smith - a really powerful and respected actor who has gained a reputation for a classy and family-friendly persona, having starred in one of the biggest sitcoms ever and in many huge blockbusters - suddenly assaulting and loudly swearing at a host and then the ceremony carrying on without him being escorted out, and then Smith receiving a standing ovation despite him not apologising properly and arguably attempting to justify his actions. It's activated a lot of discussion and debate and news coverage of it significantly eclipsed the entire ceremony. The immensely viral nature of it as well is article-worthy; it's similar to the Howard Dean scream incident where him shouting one word resulted in so much instant media attention and reporting that it killed his presidential campaign. Smith assaulting Rock won't kill his career but it's definitely stained it and made this particular Academy Awards infamous. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 10:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you, Planet Deadwing. Magik 3099 (talk) 15:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per RoyalObserver as well as other comments in favour of deletion/redirect. TheScrubby (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's simply too much to discuss than would fit as a subsection of
WP:GNG is an understatement. I understand the comparisons to 2009 MTV Video Music Awards#Kanye West–Taylor Swift incident, but as a practical matter there's too much to say than would be reasonable to fit in the 94th Academy Awards. Endwise (talk) 11:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Obvious Keep there are a large number of relevant details and stuff, too much to just be a section on the 94th Oscars page, and this has got a ton of attention and coverage independent from articles going over the whole awards event. DemonDays64 (talk•contribs) 12:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable incident that warrants an article. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 12:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is simply too much to include about the incident on the 94th Oscars page and the incident is clearly notable enough to include an article. This one event has been talked about more than the rest of the 94th Oscars itself. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this nonsense. The only thing the United States can come up with this is the slap article. Remove this nonsense ASAP 202.9.46.26 (talk) — 202.9.46.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep, because this was an very notable event and rightfully deserves its own page. Having its own subsection within the 2022 Oscars page will detract from the information regarding the event itself. This incident has taken on a life of its own and lots of new information has come out since the slap. It is an ever changing story and absolutely deserves its own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatCollectibleDude (talk • contribs)

Redirect to 94th Academy Awards. I do not see that this incident is notable enough for a discrete article - I highly doubt that it will generate the sustained coverage required. firefly ( t · c ) 14:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has received enough coverage to be a standalone article.
WP:EVENT --► Sincerely: Sola virum 14:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep It should do fine within the Awards article; however, it has gained significant press coverage and it may be relevant on its own. --Bedivere (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is no reason to delete and fold this into the 94th Academy Awards. Paradoxically, this got international coverage well beyond the Oscars awards themselves. The quality of the article is decent imo, reflecting the amount of substantial international coverage of the event. You could not possibly fold all the kb into the 94th Oscars or the Smith article without suffering from undue, and we would therefore have to omit much of the detail RSs have provided. Solipsism 101 (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Snowball Keep: C'mon. Hard to believe this is even in question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, leaning delete: This is a notable event, sure, but there really isn't much to the event yet. Others on this page have cited the Janet Jackson incident as an event that warrants this page remaining, but the issue is that the incident continued to be relevant for years after it happened, even resulting in a phrase that continues to be used to this very day. The Chris Rock/Will Smith incident has only been relevant for a few days, so I'd recommend deleting, but if the incident continues to be relevant in 2023, it should be brought back. DolimiccanDragon (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not sure why there's even a debate about this. It was a very notable event in popular culture. Someguy432 (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Having a dedicated article allows for more detail than would be permitted if our coverage were folded into another article, due to weight issues. Le Marteau (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~
talk) 17:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. My crystal ball just broke, so I can't see whether this is going to generate sustained coverage in the future. Without that, this can be a footnote in the bios of the two persons involved and/or in the Oscars article. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
don't like it instead of presenting such flimsy arguments. Mlb96 (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The slap got way more attention than the awards themselves. There have been hundreds of news articles on it. When people look back on the 94th Oscars, this is the one thing they’ll remember. It deserves its own Wikipedia page. Cpotisch (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would understand the "delete" angle if it was just one of those things that pops up for a day, like that "break the internet" selfie Ellen tried at the Oscars that one time. But this is only a few notches below if someone set themselves on fire on stage at the Oscars in terms of noteworthiness. It's well beyond business as usual.69.119.69.199 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This might be similar to the Kanye Taylor incident in 2009, where everyone still has this in the back of their heads when discussing these two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.82.51.127 (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep This article is amazing. Look at how well it is structured and sourced. Whoever was involved in it has done an amazing job. The incident is widely known. No question. Strong keep--109.112.8.79 (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic has gained very significant media coverage from various established outlets. I don't have the time to list sources I found here, but the ones already listed in the article just already gives it a
notability pass. A separate article seems to be the best choice as the topic branches off into other topics such as being involved in the most-viewed, non-music, non-trailer video on YouTube, its impact on the Oscars, and its reactions ranging from celebrities and corporations. Although, I understand that this topic might seem like sort of a "trend" currently and will barely get any further coverage in the future, but I don't really think that's too much of a concern as all events and trends die out at some point. As long as the topic gets coverage from numerous reliable sources, I'm cool with it. Sparkl^talk 18:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep – You don't need
WP:SUSTAINED and it probably irks some, as it does me to an extent, that so much is said about our culture's focus on an event of such nature, but it is what it is and it deserves an article. UserTwoSix (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep: This has eclipsed the Oscars itself, and has drawn attention as its own incident. As other editors have mentioned, this would be totally undue to include in the main article for the 94th Academy Awards, or Will Smith's main article. QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

^ Feinberg, Scott (28 March 2022). "Academy "Condemns" Will Smith Behavior at Oscars, Sets Full Board of Governors Meeting". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 30 March 2022.

^ Patten, Dominic; Complex, Valerie (30 March 2022). "Will Smith, Chris Rock Incident "Will Take A Few Weeks" To Probe Says Academy In Letter To Members". Deadline. Retrieved 30 March 2022.

^ "Why so many people thought the Oscars slap was staged". 29 March 2022.

Independent.co.uk
. 29 March 2022.

^ "Slapping Chris Rock Could Cost Will Smith More Than His Oscar". Forbes.

^ "Academy "condemns" Will Smith's actions at Oscars, says it's launching a formal review". CBS News.

^ Jurgensen, John (29 March 2022). "Will Smith's Oscars Slap of Chris Rock Prompts One-Liners and Worry from Comedians". Wall Street Journal.

^ "Liberals and Conservatives Are Battling for the Worst Political Take on Will Smith's Oscars Slap". Rolling Stone. 28 March 2022.

^ https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/28/oscars-2022-ceremony-bungled-even-before-will-smith-slapped-chris-rock.html

Keep - Well written, well-sourced, and receiving major news coverage. Likeanechointheforest (talk) 19:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:RECENTISM. This event is comparable to Mike Tyson biting Holyfield's ear off but we don't have an article separate from Evander Holyfield vs. Mike Tyson II for the bite. Transcendence (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Transcendence: because that does have its own article: the boxing match where that took place. Its a specific detail about the specific match. This, on the other hand, is a significant incident and scandal that just so happened to occur on live television at the Oscar’s of all places, resulting in its magnification in significance and it being a spectacle on its own separate from the Oscars. DrewieStewie (talk) 00:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just like the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show controversy, this event has garnered more recognition than the ceremony itself. Most people hadn't even known the Oscars had happened until the slapping incident. ChrisBungle (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This incident is very notable and should have its own article. Will629 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect -
WP:RECENTISM. While notable, tihs is certainly not something that deserves its own article. Notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia for sure, but the implications of this are merely subject to speculation. Until a consensus has been reached on the actual impact of the event, this topic should be left in the original Oscars page. zer0^talk 20:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as the amount of coverage given is beyond what a flash-in-the-pan moment would receive. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the event has been blown way out of proportion, and once more information comes in and the article is edited and cleaned up, it will stand on it's own. This is not Kanye's 2009 incident, because this is an actual violent attack that disrupted the ceremony, and could lead to further discourse. Keep the article. AlienChex (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event is extremely notable, it's been covered in a massive amount of reliable sources and has had a huge impact. Almost nobody even recognized the Oscars happened until the slap. Fijipedia (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Oscars Page, It's notable but I believe it can just be mentioned under 94th Academy Awards instead. Swagging (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics. Currently the consensus seems to be making about 81 separate positions for KEEP, and about 21 for DELETE (with or without redirect to Academy Awards article); that's roughly 4-to-1 to keep the new article. The daily page count spike for the associated Academy Awards article was at about 1.5 million page views two days ago and down to 600K yesterday. ErnestKrause (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE, those stats will look a bit different. --Randykitty (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
And if you leave out the !votes just yelling
WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE then the ratio would be 100% keep to 0% delete. Mlb96 (talk) 23:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Worth a reminder that AfD isn't a straw poll. A notable number of keep !votes are simply "everyone is talking about it" or "it created a lot of memes", which are not policy- or guideline-based arguments. A significant number of the keeps do make proper arguments, but the ones saying keep just on the basis of "it's really famous right now" do not have the same weight as their properly articulated brethren. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 22:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you leave out the people who want to remove it because
WP:IDONTLIKEIT, that also changes things. It's pretty evident that this is notable and should be kept (it's also evident that if delete somehow wins, this will result in a deletion review). -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
There aren't significant
WP:(not)SUSTAINED, which you are free to disagree with as not strong arguments, but that's absolutely not the same as "I don't like it" or "this is a silly article" or "it's stupid to include". ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 22:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see any compelling arguments as to why this event isn't notable.
WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH... BlackholeWA (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I think
WP:Crystal does have some merit, but not in a way that those who want to delete this article think. Given that the weight of all available evidence is that this story will susitained notability, claiming that it won't is an attempt to predict future coverage. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that's fair, Rockstone, though I disagree about it. I think this is becoming an illustration of a philosophical divide on which direction CRYSTAL should be applied in.

To Blackhole, CRYSTAL is being invoked about the coverage of the event, not the event itself, so "it already happened" is not the point; and, how could it be a fad for "several" days when it's only been three. Like, make the argument that it's notable, but don't inflate the amount of time since, bc that's an actual measure being considered here. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 01:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redriect to Oscars Page. I would support to redrict this to 94th_Academy_Awards#Will_Smith-Chris_Rock_incident Cwater1 (talk) 22:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now; the topic's enduring relevance can always be reassessed in the future. Those arguing for a redirect to the page for the 94th Academy Awards have a near-insurmountable challenge in explaining how this incident is a subtopic of the event generally when this altercation is dwarfing all other coverage of the event. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 23:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sub-topic of the event because it occurred at the 94th Academy Awards during the ceremony. Even if it has enduring coverage and effects and a legacy from the incident alone justifying a separate article, it will always be a sub-topic of the Awards ceremony, just as how the
Wreck of the RMS Titanic will always be a sub-topic of Titanic. It having the ability to stand on its own as a topic doesn't mean it isn't a sub-topic of something else, and it's kind of irrelevant. It's a sub-topic because it was part of a larger event. ~Cheers, Ten Ton Parasol 23:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Anyone who is saying that it wouldn't have sustained coverage should be feeling pretty stupid right about now. It already has more than enough coverage to justify an article, and people trying to argue that the keep !voters don't have a policy-based argument are seriously grasping at straws, because they're the ones who don't have a real argument aside from
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. With how much significant coverage in reliable sources this has already received and will continue to receive as it keeps progressing, it would make more sense to redirect the awards ceremony to this article rather than the other way around. There is quite literally no policy-based argument whatsoever for deleting this. Mlb96 (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - clearly not a violation of
WP:NOTNEWS.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete A
WP:RECENTISM. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:REDUNDANTFORK Huh? The article covers plenty of material that isn't covered in the article on the awards ceremony and wouldn't make sense to cover in the article on the awards ceremony.

clearly fails WP:LASTING On what grounds is this "clear"?
WP:LASTING
literally says that "recent events with unproven lasting effect are [not] automatically non-notable." And the Academy hasn't even made a decision on what it's going to do about this, so it's guaranteed to receive more coverage in the future.

WP:RECENTISM This is not an argument for deleting the article. It's either notable or it isn't. There is no minimum amount of time before something becomes notable. Mlb96 (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Keep !Vote comment All the editiors arguing for deletion with
Madonna on Late Show with David Letterman in 1994. Think about that and let that sink in for a minute. DrewieStewie (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

At this point this should be closed as SNOW keep anyway. Clearly not going to meet consensus to delete. BlackholeWA (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the incident has completely eclipsed the news cycle for the past two days, and become a major point of controversy. It has led to a public divide as to who was in the right (or at least more in the right), and there is precedent for an article such is this, much like the super bowl incident. This incident has caused much discussion and is quickly becoming the biggest Oscar moment. It should remain.Zvig47 (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The arguments claiming
disproportionate amount of the latter to be about the incident. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 01:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP, I feel like on-camera physical assault is more than just ‘tabloid gossip.’ There are enough potential facets and consequences to this situation (elements far beyond just the two participants) that a vote for deletion is too hasty to make right now. --Aabicus (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per
WP:RECENTISM. Coverage of this incident belongs in the 94th Academy Awards article in the #Will Smith-Chris Rock incident section or its own section in that article; but it definitely does not need its own separate article. Even the Kanye West–Taylor Swift incident doesn't have its own page even though it's still talked about 13 years later. Some1 (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I went over the two policies you stated and it seems to match both of them. Also, there are 51 references on the article (goes to show that the event has recieved significant coverage). Seems notable enough. talk) - just another roadgeek 01:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep This article is more noteworthy than the Academy Awards themselves, and many (if not most) people want to read about this without reading about the awards themselves. Taylor Swift/Kanye West isn't the argument people think that it is: that event also overshadowed the 2009 MTV VMAs; perhaps it, too, deserves it's own page. The same mistake shouldn't be made twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaredhicks27 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and delete later if nothing more comes of it. There are a bunch of guidelines you can use to support either way. Ultimately, it's a useful article right now as it's something a lot of people want to know about, which is the point of an encyclopaedia. If the event has lasting consequences outside of just the Oscars or just Will Smith's career, then it deserves its own article outside of the articles for this Oscars and Will Smith. But if nothing comes of it, then we can merge the content and redirect this one.
WP:RECENT is not an argument purely against the existence of this article; the essay also contains arguments for the positives of recent information. It's about balance. Will Smith's article should not be unduely burdened by information on this event because it wouldn't provide a balanced view of his entire life and would be unfairly weighted towards recent information. However, an article on a recent event, providing there is reason to think it will continue to be seen as a notable event in future, is not a problem. We will find out moving forward. For now, there's no harm in its existence. MClay1 (talk) 03:16, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. This incident has reached the extraordinary level of coverage necessary to become a cultural moment, at which point NOTNEWS no longer really applies. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The story will keep going and going and going. This is the only thing anyone is going to remember from the night. We're getting close to the point that maybe 94th Academy Awards should redirect to here! Re Taylor Swift/Kanye West comparisons, maybe its time that incident receives its own page MaskedSinger (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is a big event, ongoing source wise, and all the gory details, changing of sources etc, belongs in the history here, not in the history of the two pages mentioned in the nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And don’t attempt a rename until it is at least 3 weeks old. It takes that long to get sources of proper perspective. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although this article is discussed on other wiki articles, this article has some serious depth to it. There is even an analysis section is added. This is certainly more than just a news headlining event, this was litterally physical assault on stage on live television between two well known actors. This will certainly go down in history. I'm sure the sources are much more than just "E!" news articles... DreamlessGlare (talk) 06:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The OP says that "it is too early to judge whether this event will have lasting notability", however, aside from the extraordinary amount of RS on this incident (i.e it meets WP:GNG), many of the highest quality
WP:RS/P have alreay ranked the indicent as the most significant in Oscars history. Examples: Rolling Stone, NPR, The Guardian etc. I would probably list over 10 WP:RS/P sources that rank this incident as the most notable in Oscars history. 78.19.232.48 (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, I notice that the incident is appearing as a large (and growing) paragraph in several Wikipedia articles (e.g. 94th Academy Awards, Will Smith, Chris Rock), and therefore having one main article with the detail is helpful for readers, and avoids repetition and error 78.19.232.48 (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator says its too early to call but I think this has grown bigger than anyone imagined over the last days and its now. I see some serious depth to it --Icem4k (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This should be keeped because many people are talking about this and many important things have a Wikipedia article, this is important because for one, actors slapping actors is unprecedented and two, this is remembered as television history’s most important time. nash neefus (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral In my opinion, it passes the
becuase of being 'recent' based on the date of the sources. Best if we wait for a month or so for other sources and I will finalize my answer as a keep, otherwise... Xinghua (she/her) • Talk 11:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was Draftify. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zydaan Siddiqi

Zydaan Siddiqi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This individual does not seem to be notable at all, with the many references being mostly self published sources or unrelated things (a sky resort high score, really?) Gonnym (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability here. CT55555 (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gonnym,

Hope this message finds you well. Thank you for reviewing the article I composed. Per your comments, I was able to locate a source — regarded as reliable per Wiki — which I re-cited for the following subpages: "early life", "business career". In addition, I removed self-promotional/social content. A majority of that content was derived from https://www.covid19liveupdates.org/about. The remaining citations comprise of sources from The Salt Lake Tribune, The Desert News, Bloomberg (for relations)...Let me know if additional changes should be made. Thank you. User314nonymous (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show us
WP:THREE good sources please? CT55555 (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi, I listed The Deseret News (for early life), The Salt Lake Tribune (for education) iPortal Global News (for COVID-19 Live Updates & education), Bloomberg (for Relatives), covid19liveupdates.org/about (for website). I will not edit this page further, however, would it be possible to have this page reverted back to a draft then? Thanks. User314nonymous (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, COVID-19, and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant secondary coverage. Fails
COI. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not being directly or indirectly compensated/paid for my edits on this page. User314nonymous (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That’s not what I was concerned about. This is the part of the COI policy I am concerned about: You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, unless through the Articles for Creation process. If you have a personal connection to a topic or person, you are advised to refrain from editing those articles directly and to provide full disclosure of the connection if you comment about the article on talk pages or in other discussions. Do you have a personal connection to Zydaan Siddiqi? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, I came across Zydaan's covid19 site via The Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) GIS Open Data and saw the millions of metric/views on his covid19 site and put together references/mentions of him. The Deseret News (for early life), The Salt Lake Tribune (for education) iPortal Global News (for COVID-19 Live Updates & Education), Bloomberg (for Relatives), covid19liveupdates.org/about (for website), etc. User314nonymous (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alli Simpson

Alli Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

~~Minor celebrity with no lasting significance. Early evictee from two reality television series. WWGB (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]
*Keep. The article has improved significantly since nomination. I cannot withdraw the nomination, but changing my !vote to keep. WWGB (talk) 01:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails
WP:BIO. Participation in reality series does not translate to notability. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Not realising notability policy for entertainers
WP:ENT Laptopinmyhands (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete: Not really notable if those are the only reasons why she has a Wikipedia article. Alpha Piscis Austrini (talk) 12:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a lot of coverage of the time she broke her neck. A LOT. Would that count? Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 19:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one source is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk)

Comment Has write-ups in Cosmo and People, she might just meet notability here. Most of the articles you find are in unreliable sources, but there are some that we can use. Sydney Morning Herald etc. She wrote a children's book "Clouds Life's Big & Little Moments" with one review in the Midwest Book Review. I think she might just be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was thinking. We may be able to expand the article and save it. Let me do that Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 01:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
love when we can turn a NO into a YES here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the extensive references just added by User:Hack. [1] (I'm guessing they're online references, so it would be nice if they were linked...) --GRuban (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per everyone here. Also even got on the BBC too. That's something. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 22:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
WP:BASIC appears supported; with an assist from the Wikipedia Library, I also found, e.g. Bubbling Under: Alli Simpson Serves Up Debut ‘Single’ (Billboard, 2013), Do You Notice Anything Unusual About Alli Simpson's 'Notice Me' Video? Like, A Cameo From Big Brother Cody Simpson? (MTV, 2013), Exclusive! Cody Simpson's Little Sister Alli Is Getting Her Own Show (Teen Vogue, 2015), Watch Alli Simpson's New Music Video for "Roll 'Em Up" Featuring Vine Stars Jack & Jack (Teen Vogue, 2015), Here's the Song Selena Gomez & Cody Simpson Wrote for Alli Simpson! (Seventeen, 2015), Delicious' Alli's image a good fit for Disney (Daily Telegraph, 2015, via Gale), Awesome Alli Rising (Herald Sun, 2015, via Gale), Alli Simpson Lambasts Superficiality With ‘Material Boy’: Premiere (Billboard, 2017), I'm A Celebrity... Get Me Out Of Here Australia: Who Is Alli Simpson (HuffPost Australia, 2021), Masked Singer Australia unmasks Lightning as Alli Simpson (News.com.au, 2021). Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
WP:HEY. Cabrils (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow those who have expressed early opinions to update their views based on the improved article, should they so choose.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nom changing vote to keep, per
WP:BASIC as "they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"Jacona (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:CLOSEAFD#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal). Jacona (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I think I can only withdraw a nomination if every !vote was Keep, which was not the case here. WWGB (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is why you don't just vote "Delete" and then walk away, not improving an article that would be notable. Look for sources first. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 18:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although opinions are divided, the "delete" arguments are significantly more convincing in the light of applicable guidelines. These guidelines have recently been revised to make it clearer that mere participation in high-level sporting events is not a guarantee for inclusion at the article level if a search for sources does not establish notability to
WP:BURDEN to find such sources is on those who want to keep the article. Other people merely assert that the person is notable without developing arguments as to why; these opinions cannot be given much more weight than mere votes. Sandstein 09:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Mathias Logelin

Mathias Logelin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)

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

Logelin was an Olympic competitor who did not win a medal. The sports.reference.com source is essentially a sports table, and does not constitute significant coverage. My search was not able to find significant coverage on this indivual. I did find some sources that were at least significant on an early settler of Minnesota of this same name, and also a lot of sources about someone with this name, who may or may not have been the early settler of Minnesota, making claims from the US government for a military service pension payment. Becauase of these sources I am not convinced this is even the most likely search term for this name, and do not believe we should preserve this as a redirect. Plus, since he was in the Olympics twice there is no simple redirect targer. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Luxembourg. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep won a silver medal at the
WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Having a look at Luxembourg press, I've found coverage here [2], [3] and [4] for starters. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This record shows that he competed in two Olympics. He therefore deserves to be included with an article in his own name.--Ipigott (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Ipigott (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
@
WP:NOLY has been updated in recent times to only include medal winners. I don't know if there's any extra coverage of this guy in the Luxembourg press, for example. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

He has also been recognized in the local press, e.g. here. I visited the exhibition and saw photos of his achievements. No doubt many other references in the local press at the time.--Ipigott (talk) 17:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have done some searching on this myself too (possibly coming across some of the same articles aforementioned) and expanded the article with some of this historical content. It isn't my native tongue and I am relying on google translate, but he did seem to be recognised as being a top-class gymnast of his time in Luxembourg (I think it's worth noting that someone who participates in multiple Olympics is likely to be among the best in their country also). I don't know if it's enough to retain the article and i'd suggest that it could do with some sigcov if available, but I'd probably lean keep based on the fact of his national recognition (even in later years also). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's review the sources:

Luxemburger Wort, 2012: Reliable, independent source, but only a passing mention ("Mathias Logelin, the gymnast born in Differdingen, who participated in 1928 in Amsterdam and 1936 in Berlin at Olympia"). Not significant coverage.

Luxembourg: Journal du Matin, 1940 - Reliable, independent source. Only a passing mention ("The productions of the gymnasts and cells of our champion Mathias Logelin in particular. enthusiasm to all assistance, as the culminating points of the meeting, in the course of which one vit in general a sport of excellent billing").

Luxemburger Wort, 1930 - Reliable independent source, but the total mention of the subject is "Mathias Logelin, the gymnast born in Differdingen, who took part in the 1928 Amsterdam and 1936 Berlin Olympics". Not SIGCOV.

Sports-Reference.com - This is a wide, catch-all database excluded from showing notability per
WP:SPORTCRIT
. There is no mention here of any medal.

Obermosel-Zeitung - Reliable, independent source. A passing, one-sentence mention in a local newspaper ("The best is indisputably the diffeidingel Logelin Mathias. After this magnificent gymnast had been fired in Lyon, he has rapidly risen to become one of the highest international clefs in Lurner over the past few years: he can easily stand alongside the best of the tournament"). This is not evidence that Logelin was considered "the best" generally or internationally, it is only the view of a local paper in Luxembourg, a small country with a population smaller than that of an average-sized city.

L'indépendance Luxembourgeoise - Reliable, independent source. A listing of results for the Luxembourg national championships. Not significant coverage.

Escher Tageblatt, 1932 - Reliable, independent source. Not SIGCOV, the only thing it says about the subject is "In the individual ranking, our master Mathias Logelin will inevitably win the palm. Logelin represents our colours in 1928 in Amsterdam and 1930 in Luxembourg for the first time". It does not give you any real detail about the subject.

Luxemburger Wort, 1962 - Reliable, independent source, but it just doesn't say anything about the subject - his name is merely included in a long list of names of people receiving awards.

l'Espérance Differdange - Appears to be the blog of a local Luxembourgish gymnastics society in Differdange. Arguably not independent, not clearly reliable. Only a passing mention of Logelin ("During one year's design (1927-1937), Metty Logelin dominated the head and the eps her competitors in the fight for the highest march on the podium. He also participated in the Amsterdam Olympic Games in 1928 and Berlin in 1936, without forgetting the World and European Championships").

Luxemburger Wort, 1958 - Only a passing mention in a photo caption ("The old master Metty Logelin").

Luxemburger Wort, 1975 - Another bare mention in a photo caption, one name in a list.

Escher Tageblatt, 1947 - I cannot find where Logelin is supposed to be mentioned here.

There are a lot of references here, so this took a long time to do, but every single one of them is just a passing, one-sentence mention. To be significant coverage per
WP:SIGCOV
, the source must be one that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" Furthermore "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". None of the above newspaper sources does so because none provides any real detail about Logelin. Instead each is simply a trivial, one-sentence mention that tells you nothing really about the subject. Logelin might well have been the best gymnast in Luxembourg at that time, but there is no evidence here that anyone thought that a sufficiently notable thing for them to actually write something substantial about him.

There is also no mention of a silver medal at the World Championships in these sources, but even if there was, a World Championship medal is not an automatic pass for notability. Our article on the 1934 World Artistic Gymnastics Championships (is this the same as the actual world championships?) lists Logelin OR Eugen Mack as having received the silver at that competition, and states that there are "discrepancies" in the records, so it appears that we do not actually know whether Logelin won silver or not - in fact it is not clear at all that he won a medal there.

Delete it is then. FOARP (talk) 08:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:SOURCESEXIST, which may be true, though where someone has numerous mentions over a wide timeframe, it's plausible. I implied in my comment that sigcov would be highly desirable and, in part aligning with your own feelings on this, I did not feel strong enough to !vote but felt it was worth adding what I found. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Bungle - if the sources exist then go and find them. Until then, all we have here is evidence that local newspapers in Luxembourg, a very small country, occasionally mentioned this person fleetingly and in passing when talking about other things, never discussing the topic in detail or in depth. This man died in the 1990's, if he was truly notable, one would expect that at least some kind of obituary would have been written then - where is it? If he was considered a notable sportsman, then where is the retrospective? The Olympics he competed in were long ago, but then so was Lidell and Abrahams' run in the 1924 Olympics and that was the subject of countless news coverage, a film, [book], a stage production, and a hit album.

Ask yourself: how many Luxembourg citizens may have been similarly mentioned in passing? I would wager that a great many such people were mentioned in passing in Luxembourg papers at the same level, including minor local politicians and minor non-notable actors, none of whom rise to the level of being sufficiently notable to cover in an article on English Wikipedia.

The reason why this article exists is not because anyone ever thought the topic would ever pass GNG. The reason why it exists is because a previous, now-defunct SNG said that everyone who ever competed at the Olympics was automatically notable, and the creator then proceeded to create many thousands of articles exactly as problematic as this one, but we have since decided that this was wrong. FOARP (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FOARP, I am largely not disagreeing with you on this and as noted, I did not feel confident or strong enough about retaining the article to expressly !vote as such. Rather, I am suggesting that someone who represents their country in the Olympics (and twice), coupled with the multiple (albeit, fleetingly-mentioned) coverage which has been found (up to now), would generally imply a degree of notability. I am not advocating keep on this (though leaning that way), but offering what I can to allow others to make an informed decision. Regarding your very last point, I have made an effort to expand many of these stubs (though limited to English-language individuals) in recent times and I have found, in nearly every case, that notability is established. I think focus for deletion should be on individuals where there isn't even implied notability, and there are many of those. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bungle - Personally, I have been involved in a number of these discussions and what I have seen in them does not convince me that notability is being established in anything like the overwhelming majority of cases. Typically what is instead seen is what is happening here: a large number of "It's notable" !votes with no actual basis in sourcing, some passing mentions found in the sources and added to the article in the hope that the closer will buy the idea that the article has been improved sufficiently to pass.

This article is in fact a poster-child to the kind of articles that we should be focusing on: pre-war Olympians who did not win a medal and for whom there is no significant coverage. FOARP (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS - also,
WP:REFBOMB. FOARP (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep on balance. Clearly a long-term competitor at a high level. Deb (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This appears to me to be against general notability assessment. If someone is mentioned even fleetingly in so many publications, there is a clear establishment of notability. Since the person in question is no longer living, there may well be many other references from newspapers and journals in French and German which have not been mentioned. Please consider keeping as I already called.--Ipigott (talk) 15:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree. Deb (talk) 09:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If someone/something is mentioned only fleetingly, even if they were fleetingly mentioned many times, this still means they are not notable. You cannot simply pile up many instances of fleeting mentions of something and say "this means they must be notable", because none of them show that the subject was ever considered sufficiently notable to write in detail and in depth about.

WP:GNG
nor can it pass any other standard.

Saying "But there must be sources!" is
an argument long recognised as a logical fallacy at AFD. If the sources exist then go and find them - I cannot find any such sources. FOARP (talk) 16:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 16:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
WP:SIGCOV, and we have none here. BilledMammal (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

A note on redirecting - If there were an obvious redirect I would consider it, but there is no obvious redirect here. Logelin competed non-notably in a number of different competitions, so no single one is an obvious redirect. List of men's artistic gymnasts is not a list simply of every gymnast but only those with FIG profiles, Logelin is not presently included there, and the only listing for someone with that name on the FIG website for someone born in 1970. As has been noted above, this Matthias Logelin is just one of a number of equally non-notable Matthias Logelins, so it is not immediately obvious that people are really looking for him. The average number of pageview each month in the year to February was 8, most of which will have been bots, and in some months the number was zero, so the idea that this is a likely search term is dubious. FOARP (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The evidence and sourcing provided satisfies
WP:N by my estimation. Canadian Paul 20:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:ITSNOTABLE !vote. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Per Ipigott's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERX argument. FOARP (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Bbb23. CSD A1: Short article without enough context to identify the subject: A3. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avinash Sahijwani

Avinash Sahijwani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Is this how a disambiguation page is supposed to be? Like Avinash Sahinwani is an actor who appears in the soap opera listed on the page, but I highly believe that this isn't the Manual of style that Wikipedia follows to describe works of an individual. I propose moving the page to draftspace for further improvement by the initial creator. Emir Shane (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Emir Shane (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Emir Shane (talk) 15:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify This is some sort of biography but I doubt it would be notable?
talk) 15:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or drafty for being not an article CT55555 (talk) 17:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Possible speedy no context Josey Wales^Parley 20:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note Has been deleted CSD A1 earlier today Josey Wales^Parley 21:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Miyasi Sandeepani

Miyasi Sandeepani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails
WP:RS apart from a couple of gossip columns. Chanaka L (talk) 09:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I added the source assessment table.--Chanaka L (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Chanakal

Source
Independent?
Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?

https://gossip.hirufm.lk/9528/2016/05/hiru-gossip-interview-miyasi-sandeepani.html ~
WP:INTERVIEW
gossip site ✘ No

https://www.gossip.lankahotnews.com/2019/07/miyasi-sandeepani.html ? inner frame throws a 404 error gossip site ? 404 error ✘ No

https://www.saaravita.lk/new_pic/e0b6ade0b6bbe0b784e0b6ade0b78a-e0b6bae0b6b1e0b780e0b78f-e0b784e0b79/101-679698 ~ WP:INTERVIEW ? The editorial process of saaravita.lk is not known ? Unknown

Interview with https://www.lankadeepa.lk/ ~ WP:INTERVIEW ~ Partial

http://sithma.com/hot_lanka/show.php?id=26124 ~ WP:INTERVIEW ? The editorial process of sithma.com is not known ? Unknown

Interview with https://www.mawratanews.lk/ ~ WP:INTERVIEW ? The editorial process of mawratanews.lk is not known ? Unknown

Interview with http://www.aruna.lk/ ~ WP:INTERVIEW ? The editorial process of aruna.lk is not known ? Unknown

http://webgossip.lk/miyasi-sandeepani/ ~ WP:INTERVIEW gossip site ✘ No

Photoshoot on https://www.lankadeepa.lk/ Mentions only the name, just a credit list ✘ No

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-onipRJx8k Primary source ✘ No

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcaOVaA13ag Primary source ✘ No

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WblQ7_7_TsA Primary source ✘ No

http://www.derana.lk/Ravana-Season-2-Teledrama Primary source ✘ No

https://www.dailynews.lk/2017/06/27/features/120101/vimansa-mini-screen No mention of her. ✘ No

This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Chanaka L (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Chanaka L (talk) 09:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Fashion. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable?? She had notable appearances in two historical television serials as well as a sub-lead role in a film. Also, there are many music videos appeared by her as the lead actress. Youtube videos means they are official music videos, not any tiktok videos or personal scraps. So, they should belong to her as notable appearances in music videos. There are many music video artists in Wiki from other countries even without a single notable citation. Check them. GihanJayaweera^TALK 13:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then those should be tagged and removed as well. I see no substantial and reliable sources here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are telling me that local Sinhalese newspapers such as Lankadeepa, Dinamina, Aruna, Silumina are not reliable. Only English language newspapers are reliable. I have added three more reliable sources today. GihanJayaweera^TALK 17:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out the good sources that are news, not interviews/primary sources? CT55555 (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this maybe a case of
WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 02:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But will happily change my mind if anyone can point out a few good sources that are not interviews, YouTube links etc, but as it stands they are all weak sources as demonstrated in the table. CT55555 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. despite three relistings. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certain Chapters

Certain Chapters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non notable short film, appears to fail
WP:NFILM DonaldD23 talk to me 23:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 23:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes Wikipedia:Notability_(films)#Inclusionary_criteria #2 as the debut film of a notable director. SailingInABathTub (talk) 13:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need significant coverage?
Brian O'Conner 07:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The guideline states, "A topic related to film may not meet the criteria of the general notability guideline, but significant coverage is not always possible to find on the Internet". SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.
(non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

List of Lambda Upsilon Lambda chapters

List of Lambda Upsilon Lambda chapters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While Lambda Upsilon Lambda in itself is notable, there is no reason to have a list of all non-notable chapters of this group, we are not a directory. Fails
Fram (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Jax MN (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that you are misreading WP:LISTN. I believe the key sentence here is "Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable". As an additional comment, although "Other things exist" is certainly not a reason, the article is not particularly unique, Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society has over 100 articles. Naraht (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fram (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Which is why the statement about the category was parenthetical rather than part of my reason for a keep.Naraht (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article for Lambda Upsilon Lambda would be too long if this was included in it. Today an editor decided to erase it from the main article [5] and then create a new article to hold that information. Do other such things have their own articles? Do they list all their chapters in their articles? Articles for businesses and organizations don't list every location they have. Dream Focus 15:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, it appears that the editor (I believe the first part as an IP) added the chapters over the last couple of weeks and then split it off. However, IMO, the decision would have been equal from a Wikipedia standpoint if the chapter list had been there for a year or for 10 minutes, it is large enough that it should have its own article.Naraht (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Per reasons stated by Naraht. It is common for Greek organizations to have list articles for their chapters, LUL is also one of the biggest Latino fraternities in the country and is continuously expanding throughout the nation. This list article would have eventually been required either way, as was the case for the Divine 9 fraternities, and Lambda Sigma Upsilon. DovahDuck (talk) 17:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
WP:CSC explicitly enumerates collections of not individually notable items as a policy-based reason for lists. This sufficiently answers the single reason for deletion advanced by the nominator; please ping me if any others are raised and need commentary. Jclemens (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep If the aim of list articles was to be haphazard and incomplete, with only singularly notable standalone representatives listed, as Fram seems to prefer, the value of Wikipedia as a resource would be far reduced. Instead, it would become an annoyance to readers, and train casual users not to trust Wikipedia as a comprehensive source. Perhaps that is not Fram's aim, but that would be the result. We're not going to run out of server space. I too think Fram misunderstands the meaning of
WP:LISTN. Jax MN (talk) 05:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per
WP:ILIKEIT, or are attempts to right great wrongs (per the person that voted keep partly because this is a Latino fraternity). None of which are valid keep reasons. I'm happy to change my vote to keep if someone can come up with a legitimate one though and no, I don't think that includes the whole "individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" thing as it's a slippery slope argument that doesn't apply here IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
With a few exceptions, chapters *shouldn't* be blue linked. The number of fraternity/sorority chapters with a page is *very* small, I remember (maybe misremembering) one that was supposedly the oldest fraternity west of the Mississippi before it joined the National. I've started AFDs on pages about specific chapters of Nationals myself.

As for listing them as part of the Lambda Upsilon Lambda article, that is where it was, but it represented a perhaps unreasonably large part of that article. If you feel that they would belong there, could you indicate that you find Merging back into the Lambda Upsilon Lambda preferred?Naraht (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what your point is about the blue links or how it relates to this. Can you perhaps elaborate? Re: merging, I don't think a merge is necessary when the content to be saved is extremely small and can just be copied over to the other article without any hassle being involved. Also, there isn't really any edit history worth saving. So I see zero reason to merge this compared to just deleting it. In the meantime I don't think it will represent an unreasonably large part of the Lambda Upsilon Lambda as long as it isn't completely indiscriminate. That's something that should be worked out on the articles talk page though, but more generally I don't think it is good practice or follows the guidelines to just indiscriminately include everything you can in a list, split it off from the main article, and then say it can't be up-merged or whatever because it includes everything under the sun. No list can or should be all encompassing. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, you first mentioned blue links. Our standard practice for these lists of chapters has a blue link for the school, and for the location (sometimes both city and state/province). This is our common syntax throughout all these articles, and I agree there is still work to do on ΛΥΛ. Some of us more veteran editors step in after a page like this is made, and we improve the formatting to meet our Project standard templates. On the separate issue raised, I know of perhaps a dozen individual chapters that have their own WP articles, often because they are historically-significant locals, or their buildings are on the historical register, or because of some infamy. As to the myriad of other chapters noted on these list pages, sometimes a reference points to a university's portal for them, to verify existence, but we routinely delete chapter-owned websites as references for chapters, because these so often go bad and because WP isn't a directory. These steps all show adherence to general WP policies. Jax MN (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jax MN, thanks for the comment. I'm aware of what the practice with blue links is in general. I just wasn't sure if Naraht saying chapters shouldn't be blue linked was a pro or con against keeping the list based on the fact that there are no blue links. Personally, I don't think it should either not be a factor or at least one for why the article isn't notable. Since obviously the main draw of list articles is to act as navigation aids. I don't think locations of organizations are inherently notable either. So there should be more to creating lists of them then whatever the keep arguments being here amount to, which isn't much. IMO the fact that only a few individual chapters have articles just supports that. In the meantime, I'd have zero problem with a list where some are blue linked, some not, and the ones that aren't being linked to reliable, independent sources, but I doubt that will ever be the case here or really with other similar lists. I don't think they should get a special pass from the notability guidelines as a group just because none of them will ever be notable either. Otherwise, we could just as easily make lists of every fast food chains local restaurants for instance, which I'm sure everyone here would agree we shouldn't do. Generally, "none of these are individually notable. So we should have a list for them" just seems like a weird take to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Editors are encouraged to add any of the sources indicated in this discussion to the article to prevent renomination in the near future.
(non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃 _{(ICE-T • ICE CUBE)} 13:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Hitler teapot

Hitler teapot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This was certainly a fun and interesting read! All the same I think
WP:NOTNEWS clearly applies here. Hope I'm wrong... Kingoflettuce (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I think in the context of this being the subject of discussion in subsequent years, it should stay:
2014 https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/teaselling-narendra-modi/article5597925.ece

2015 https://time.com/3982146/mars-crab-monster/

Also more non-news writing:
http://odmgrp.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Viral-Marketing-blog.pdf

Brief mention in Rosenfeld, G. D. (2015). Hi Hitler! How the Nazi Past Is Being Normalized in Contemporary Culture. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Keep I think, but open minded to be persuaded if I'm missing something CT55555 (talk) 13:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the article describes an object rather than a single event, I don't think NOTNEWS applies here. — Sean Brunnock (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point wuz that much of the sourcing is derived from news dating to March 2013 over the kerfuffle that the kettle caused. @CT55555: Thanks, hadn't come across those sources, but I find them very trivial. "This being the subject of discussion in subsequent years" is a blatant, blatant distortion of the sources and I urge others to look at them for yourself. It's a passing reference in both, certainly not the "subject of discussion"... It's almost as if we are looking at different sources... ODM one is far more substantive but I can't vouch for its reliability. Can't access the book. So it's by-and-large still a case of NOTNEWS imo... Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're over analyzing this. Even without my sources I think it meets
WP:GNG CT55555 (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
It makes all the difference coz this is precisely what NOTNEWS is guarding against (sure, it's more of an object than an event, but that's really just splitting hairs). The point is, yes, a lot has been written about it but it's a) frivolous coverage b) all from the same period in time (March 2013). As I admitted, it's interesting and well-written but surely at AfD we should interrogate the subject's inherent notability more thoroughly. I simply don't see evidence of notability here, just "thousands of hits on Google"-ity. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with CT55555. However, it can be said the mentions in some of the new sources are trivial, but we do have others from reliable sources like The Guardian, NPR, (at least, I hope their reliable!) going into much detail about the controversy. HenryTemplo (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I feel like we might slipping into a Wikiphilosophy discussion… judging from some of the other comments, I really don’t think it’s clear that this article comes under WP:NOTNEWS, so we might find this boiling down to a inclusionist vs. deletionist debate… maybe… like…. very maybe. HenryTemplo (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Could use more sources, but an interesting bit of 21st Century pop culture. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I’m afraid I don’t really see how NOTNEWS applies clearly to this, I think Sean Brunnock put it best. (I’d like to thank CT55555 for finding some more sources as well, very much appreciated!) HenryTemplo (talk) 15:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
WP:NOTNEWS only applies to current events: "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia". However, this article is not about an event, it's about a teapot. The policy doesn't apply here. Don't get me wrong-- the article could certainly use more sources to show that it's remained significant in subsequent years-- but that's not something a little editing can't fix. I think that the participants in this discussion have found quite a few good sources to demonstrate this. I'd also like to chip in with this coverage from 2015: https://books.google.com/books/about/Hitler_s_Doubles.html?id=OBFNCAAAQBAJ, pages 475-76. Helen(💬📖) 00:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment The image in the article is on the far right. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this item, not an event, also received coverage in subsequent years. A few books hits in google.--Mvqr (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I'm most likely swimming against a snow close here, but the relevant guideline is
WP:NOTNEWS—and I ain't seein' it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in the Hood

Lost in the Hood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The BBFC source is about another movie entirely. The other two sources are adult industry publicity and thus not independent Ficaia (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Georgia (U.S. state). CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete I found one source in Scholar: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137291998_9 haven’t read it, don’t know if it’s reliable, at least seems to prove it was actually banned by the BBFC. Otherwise nothing, just a common generic phrase used as a porno plot because of course it was. Hell, none of the performers or crew in this thing are even notable. Overall I think the standard is that individual modern pornos are almost never notable since they’re a dime a dozen and have no substantial content besides… well, pornography, meaning there’s hardly ever anything to review or cover by mainstream sources. Dronebogus (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The most value this article has to readers is probably the unintentional humor of the dry plot summary. Also, “tray miller”’s first result is a beer tray. Dronebogus (talk) 15:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eiffel Tower in popular culture

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture

Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture (2nd nomination)

Articles for deletion/Eiffel Tower in popular culture (3rd nomination)

Eiffel Tower in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

An indiscriminate list of works that mention the Eiffel Tower, mostly unreferenced. For many entries the Tower doesn't even play a significant role, it just appears at some point. I am not seeing any reliable work that discusses this topic. TVTrope-like
WP:TNT applies as well. (Sadly, I couldn't even confirm that the Famous works of art in popular culture: a reference guide covers this topic, the snippets I see discuss the history of the Tower, but not its representation). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The thing is iconic, I don't see why we need a list of every time it pops up in a media item though. Oaktree b (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Draftify) - While the topic is likely notable, the current text is just a TV Tropes style listing of every time it has shown up in a piece of media, no matter how minor or unimportant its appearance actually was. As stated by one of the only pieces of legitimately sourced information in the introduction, that is basically going to include every piece of media that has any scene set in Paris. While there should be no prejudice against rewriting or creating a new article on the topic in an actual reliably sourced, encyclopedic manner, the current article should not remain in the main space until that happens, just due to its potentially notable title. Rorshacma (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Largely original research, indiscriminate list and example farm. Any sourced info can be further expanded in a section of Eiffel Tower without requiring its own article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chaise a Bureau

Advanced search for:
"corner chair"

In books/documents

Google Books · Questia
Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news

Google News: recent · archives

Questia · New York Times
Los Angeles Times
Wall Street Journal · Washington Post
Financial Times · BBC News
The Age · The Hindu
News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals
and reference works

Google Scholar: academic · legal

Microsoft Academic: new · original
Oxford Reference · JSTOR
PUBMED Central · Questia
HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages

Google Web Search · Advanced Search
Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4
Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage
Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)

Google · Flickr

More

Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources
The Wikipedia Library

Chaise a Bureau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Unverifiable. I can find one reference which mentions a "chaise à bureau" from the Rococo, but without any indication that this is a specific type as described here. Unsourced for nearly 15 years as well, so perhaps time to put this to rest.
Fram (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
Fram (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The thing that it is describing is actually called a corner chair (e.g. The Builder and Woodworker at the Internet Archive). Where this title came from is anyone's guess. Uncle G (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The text is identical to the entry in List_of_chairs, where it was added in May 2011, copied from this article, apparently in the hopes that it could replace it. Rename that entry to corner chair, which is the common name for such chairs and delete this entry. Vexations (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete No citations, so no notability, could be a speedy delete. CT55555 (talk) 14:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 13:40, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Governance in Europeanisation

Governance in Europeanisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Long, misplaced essay. PepperBeast (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Europe. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:18, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like a school paper. Move to user's space of initial writer User:Estate11. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a rambling essay with no clear topic. The article creator vanished eleven years ago so no point in moving this into their userspace. Mccapra (talk) 13:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not an essay hosting site. See
WP:NOTESSAY. --Kbabej (talk) 15:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2009 Maccabiah Games. ✗plicit 12:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Maccabiah Games medal table

2009 Maccabiah Games medal table (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)

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

Content merged into the 2009 Maccabiah Games article. Not notable to be a stand alone article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
WP:PROMERGE. TartarTorte 13:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2009 Maccabiah Games. Don't need a separate article for this table, and it's already included there. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on
"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Radhikapur Express

Radhikapur Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Initially draftified by Jimfbleak; I contested the draftification due to the age of the article.
That said, I don't think this is particularly notable. I've tried to search for sources, but none that focus on this particular train seem to exist. Curbon7 (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 09:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:V, I found no evidence such a "Radhikapur Express" exists with the provided details in infobox. Seems to be weird combination of the Tebhaga Express (where the infobox details seems to be copied from) and the Kolkata–Radhikapur Express (a train that actually goes the Kolkata-Radhikapur route) articles. Jumpytoo Talk 17:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this train the same as this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolkata%E2%80%93Radhikapur_Express If so, this article is a duplicate. TH1980 (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

St. Sophia Senior Secondary School

St. Sophia Senior Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails
WP:NSCHOOL criteria have been made much stricter since this article was created. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not seeing anything here that would convey the school's notability, just a couple of trivial names in school directories that aren't in-depth enough. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails
WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Checking Google, I can't find any in-depth coverage. Just the school's own website, along with their social media accounts, and listings proving it exists, but nothing that is enough to pass
WP:GNG. --Jayron 32 15:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Pontinha

Principality of Pontinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Most of the sources mention the nation as a trivial thing in light of the main topic of the source. This shows that the article isn't very notable and seems like it was started by the nation's founder as the IP which created the article has only ever edited this article and nothing else. If notability can't be shown I suggest that the page is deleted. Natalius (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because someone proclaims a place independent doesn't make it so. Sources here are largely trivial. Reywas92^Talk 14:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I easily found sources that establish notability. https://www.atlasobscura.com/places/principality-of-pontinha https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/14/experience-i-founded-my-own-country CT55555 (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC) (deleted due to good analysis below) CT55555 (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Portugal, and Islands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't researched enough about this to provide a !vote, but I don't think
independent. eviolite (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I dug deeper and you are correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313#Atlas_Obscura I'll score my vote out. CT55555 (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources and IW links,
WP:GEOPURP says micronations aren't covered by Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) and that GNG applies. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Bangkok

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok

Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok (2nd nomination)

Conrad Bangkok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails
WP:NCORP. No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 09:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Justi yaya 09:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Rlink2 (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rlink2 (talk · contribs), would you review the sources I provided and my rewrite of the article? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or make it part of All Seasons Place article. Cunard's list of references given in the first AfD nomination looks sufficient to me to keep it. The hotel is one building part of All Seasons Place office complex so it can also be placed into that article. Currently it's a redirect to the tallest building in the complex. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not sufficiently meet notability requirements. Ajf773 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If not kept, then merge/redirect to All Seasons Place ~~after reorganisation~~ (done), per Lerdsuwa and my comments at the previous AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 09:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources
.

Yeager, John (2008-10-05). "Bangkok joins the powerhouse". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
The article notes: "Architecturally, the Conrad is quite unlike the standard tower or upright slab. Its unusual octagonal footprint allows rooms of differing shapes and provides a variety of angles, aspects and views. Accommodation wings are built around a huge swimming pool and open-air spa bath, giving it the feel of a resort rather than a sterile business hotel."

Feinstein, Paul. "Fodor's Expert Review: Conrad Bangkok". Fodor's. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
The article notes: "Surrounded by embassies and attached to a massive shopping and condominium complex, the Conrad is a stunning, high-end property that prides itself on incredible service and endless amenities. Ideal for families and business travelers alike, the hotel is a polished gem with great restaurants, a top of the line spa, and is in a safe and upscale location."

Bright, Craig (2019-06-06). "Hotel review: Conrad Bangkok". Business Traveller. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
The article notes: "The hotel's renovation has certainly given the Conrad Bangkok a fresh, contemporary facelift that helps bring it up to standard with the many other new properties opening their doors around the city. As is common with newly renovated hotels, I discovered a couple of very minor teething problems that could do with being ironed out – namely, the plug sockets that needed to be broken in, as well as the somewhat recalcitrant in-room sensors – but I’m sure these issues will be addressed promptly and they didn’t really negatively impact my stay."

Nayer, Anjeeta (2013-04-26). "Review: Conrad Bangkok Hotel". Macaron Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
The article notes: "The Conrad Bangkok is situated in Bangkok’s Ploenchit district, a modern though relatively tranquil enclave of the city and is home to tall office towers, consulates and embassies and the lush Lumpini Park. ... The room was very spacious and elegantly adorned in soothing, muted colors and anointed with tasteful Thai-style decorative accents."

Jirasakunthai, Choosak (2003-01-10). "Conrad kicks off with superhero stunt". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
The article notes: "The 392-room new arrival on Wireless Road is set to emerge as a serious contender to the nearby hotel Plaza Athenee. ... Among the hotel's unique touches are its interior - in modern Thai style - and the staff uniforms, for which the hotel has eschewed the cliched traditional Thai look."

Rungfapaisarn, Kwanchai; Lueng-uthai, Patcharee (2006-10-09). "Conrad revamps for executives". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.
The article notes: "After a slight drop in its occupancy rate this year as a result of "unfavourable conditions", the Conrad Bangkok hotel expects to benefit from a rise in average daily room rates resulting from its expanded and renovated executive floors."

Long, Rachel (November 2003). "Conrad Bangkok Hotel: 2003 gold key finalist guestroom". Hospitality Design. Vol. 25, no. 8.
The article notes: "Think Thai silk, glowing teak, and carved timber platform beds. In the Conrad Bangkok Hotel guestrooms, there's no mistaking this is Thailand, where a sort of sensible elegance and use of local materials can clearly create a sense of place."

Mekloy, Pongpet (2019-07-25). "Conrad Bangkok". Bangkok Post. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.

Sritama, Suchat (2006-03-09). "Conrad Phuket opens in '07". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.

Jirasakunthai, Choosak (2003-11-14). "Conrad seeks to lure diners". The Nation. Archived from the original on 2020-11-16. Retrieved 2020-11-16.

There is sufficient coverage in
reliable sources to allow Conrad Bangkok to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conrad Bangkok participants: Johnpacklambert (talk · contribs), Paul_012 (talk · contribs), FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs), Rhododendrites (talk · contribs), Dream Focus (talk · contribs), SportingFlyer (talk · contribs), Pldx1 (talk · contribs), Piotrus (talk · contribs), Gidonb (talk · contribs), Nsk92 (talk · contribs), Levivich (talk · contribs), Timtempleton (talk · contribs), and Emperork (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Thanks Cunard for rescuing articles from deletion. I guess it is the second article I see you have rescued.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rewrote the article. The article previously had 155 words and six sources. The article now has over 1,800 words and 22 sources. The article discusses the hotel's history, location, architecture, and amenities. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was terrible back then, heck, even until a day or so ago when User:Cunard rewrote it mangificently. I only wish the world was fair and the hotel would sponsor a trip for him in recognition of his efforts :P --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Piotrus (talk · contribs)! If only the hotel would sponsor a stay for me at its Presidential Suite (its biggest room at 238 m² (2,560 sq ft)) to reward me for my efforts. ;) Cunard (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At the previous discussion, I reached the conclusion that we are better off keeping and that the topic passes the
WP:NORG before any improvements. See there. Now that the article has been improved, there is even a stronger case for keep. Thank you, Cunard. A Barnstar is on the way to you for your efforts! gidonb (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep It was notable before, now there are even more reliable sources confirming this. Dream Focus 14:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sourcing added to article. Meets
WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scannerfm

Scannerfm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails
WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE only found listings and social media. Unsourced article. The Banner talk 08:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Radio, and Spain. Justi yaya 09:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is completely unsourced, and is written in such a way that it's very unclear whether this is a real AM or FM radio station (which would be a valid notability claim, but would still require proper
WP:GNG pass.) Bearcat (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails
WP:WEB per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. When you filter out the nonsense, there is a consensus to delete here. If anyone wants this as a Draft, let me know. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Perlmutter

AfDs for this article:

Brett Perlmutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG SadHaas (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Subject does not appear to meet the qualifications surrounding notability. Subject has held a managerial role at a publicly traded company, something that many people can claim. Negotiating an internet agreement with Cuba is not a notable enough accomplishment in and of itself to justify this person having a Wikipedia biography. Although the rest of the subject's pedigree is impressive, nothing in his background appears to meet the notability requirements.
This article was previous proposed (but not nominated for deletion), but the proposal was removed by the original creator of the page on the defense that "signing the first Internet agreement between a US company and Cuba is much more than a business achievement; it is a historic moment in the development of Internet in Cuba (see articles related to that subject)." This rationale is faulty for several reasons.
First, the source material confirms that the subject DID NOT sign the internet agreement in question. Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google, signed the agreement. The subject was part of a several-person team that took part in negotiations.
Second, the source material referenced is from the Penn Gazette, which is the alumni magazine for the subjects Alma Mater, University of Pennsylvania. Per this publication's own website, the magazine is "written for, about, and frequently by alumni" of the University. I would call into question whether an alumni magazine with such a mission statement would constitute an independent source.
On further review, it appears that much of the source material comes from alumni magazines, a Google sponsored blog for its own employees (certainly not an independent or unbiased source given the topic of this page), as well as several legitimate news articles where the subject is only mentioned in passing or has one of his blog entries quoted. In one Wall Street Journal from 12-16-2016, Brett Perlmutter is not mentioned in the article at all, although he is pictured in an image attached to the article. On reviewing the source material, I cannot identify a single article where the subject of this biography is also the main subject discussed in the article, unless that article is from a publication affiliated with either the subjects company, or a school he graduated from.
All that the source material confirms is that Mr. Perlmutter was indeed employed by Google, and has some role in the negotiation of this internet deal. However, the claim that Mr. Perlmutter was alone instrumental enough in orchestrating this deal to meet the requirement for notability is not supported by independent source material. Further, even if the source material did support this, the signing of an internet deal with Cuba alone still might not meet the notability requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadHaas (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm kind of on the fence. There is a fair amount of source material, but this could be considered
WP:1E, as he doesn't seem to be notable except for his involvement in the agreement between Google and Cuba. Is there perhaps an article with which this one can merged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMB1980 (talk • contribs) 06:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi Shell, as the general rule per WP:1E is to cover the event and not the person, I think the most appropriate outcome is to merge some information regarding the internet deal into the existing article "Internet in Cuba", and delete the individual article on Brett Perlmutter. The Internet in Cuba page currently mentions nothing about this specific deal and would be the most appropriate place to move such information SadHaas (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update to the above: The "Internet in Cuba" article does have a single line referencing the Google deal. The source for that specific line (a Business Insider article) has a brief mention of Brett Perlmutter's role as negotiator of the deal.

I question how significant of an event this is if Wikipedia's "Internet in Cuba" article has such a small reference to it. I think this event can be expanded on in the "Internet in Cuba" article instead of warranting a stand-alone article for Brett Perlmutter SadHaas (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: per Nom. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This Person is a significant and meets all threshold for notability. I've added sourced highlighting Perlmutter's seminal role in not only the development of Internet in Cuba but also the Cuban Thaw. See changes and referencing here too:
https://phys.org/news/2016-12-google-cuba-faster-access-company.htmlhttps://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cuba-google-move-improve-islands-connectivity-62004795
https://www.csmonitor.com/Technology/2016/0321/How-Google-plans-to-improve-Internet-service-in-Cuba
https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/el-hombre-de-google-en-cuba-201642500
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobsteroll (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some other notes --
this person is responsible for many events, so WP;1E does not apply

Sourcing is much more vast than alumni magazines, please review sourcing

Lobsteroll (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing only confirms Perlmutter's role involving Google's expansion in Cuba. Referring to this as more than one event is a stretch.

All other achievements are sourced from either alumni magazines or the transcript of an interview with Perlmutter by a representative of his alma mater. A transcript of an interview does not meet the threshold of an independent source, as is it quoted from Perlmutter himself and therefor not independently verified.

Added source material does not appear to validate claim that Perlmutter held a seminal role. Each article has, at most, a quote by Perlmutter. (I exclude El Observador from this observation as it is written in Spanish).

Wikipedia threshold for source material dictates that context matters WP:CONTEXTMATTERS

Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article.

All that the added source material supports is that the event occurred, and was of some notability. The references to Perlmutter are insufficient to warrant his own BLP SadHaas (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few other notes:

1. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event"If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate"... In this case, the person has had a highly significant role not only over one event, but of the course of multiple events

https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-and-obama-administration-connect-over-cuba-1458763836 ... in which perlmutter is the key person

2. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event "It is important to remember that "notable" is not a synonym for "famous". Someone may have become famous due to one event, but may nevertheless be notable for more than one event." ... It is important to note that Perlmutter is notable for more than one event, but famous for a key few

2. Independent source materials do show that Perlmutter was responsible for orchestrating both deals (December 2016 and March 2019), as well as creating the first internet center with high speed broadband in March 2016, which was announced by President Obama

https://www.forbes.com/profile/brett-perlmutter/?sh=48acc2861e69

https://apnews.com/article/cuba-north-america-technology-caribbean-business-d076fa0c68b440ada320cec8478a08dc ... in which Perlmutter signed March 2019 deal ... again nothing short of historic to sign the first deal to pave the way for US-Cuba subsea cable

https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-signs-deal-with-cuba-to-speed-services-1481573940 ... Perlmutter in photo caption is clearly present at signing of Dec 2016 deal Lobsteroll (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, this article meets a higher threshold of notability than other BLPs, including: David Haberfeld Lobsteroll (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
1. This event is not highly significant, and the broad article Internet in Cuba has only a brief mention of this event. Google signing a deal to operate servers in Cuba, the 63rd largest economy in the world with a population of 11 million, is hardly highly significant. If it is, why does it not have its own article, or at least more detail on an article exclusively dedicated to the Internet in Cuba?

2. As perviously mentioned, none of the source material seems to support the assertion that Perlmutter alone was responsible for bringing internet to Cuba. The Wall Street Journal Article above does not mention Perlmutter at all, save for a caption indicating his presence in a photo. This does not support the assertion that the subject had a significant role; it refutes it.

3. The Forbes source material clearly indicates that its contents were provided by Brett Perlmutter. A profile provided by the subject constitutes self published material and fails to meet the threshold of reliable, independent source material.

4. If a user has concerns about the notability of subjects of other BLP, they can propose that article for deletion. The notability of David Haberfeld is irrelevant to this discussion. SadHaas (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP: Finally, many Google executives pass the notability threshold: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Google_employees ... thus that is not an argument for deletion of this page~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lobsteroll (talk • contribs) 04:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Lobsteroll (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]
The inclusion of other Google executives is not pertinent to this discussion. Google has 140,000 employees; some of them will be notable enough for a BLP. This discussion is limited to whether Perlmutter alone meets the notability threshold for a BLP SadHaas (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The included source material is either inapplicable or fails to demonstrate that Perlmutter meets notability standard. The orchestration of this internet deal does not meet the standard of a "highly significant event", and a standalone BLP for subject with no notability beyond this is not warranted — Preceding unsigned comment added by SadHaas (talk • contribs) 01:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: SadHaas (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Merge some data into page Internet in Cuba, which only sparsely mentions the event the subject is involved with. As it is Google's internet deal with Cuba that appears noteworthy, not the subject, further elaboration of the internet deal should be merged to the relevant existing article SadHaas (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)— Duplicate vote: SadHaas (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Delete. I searched for coverage in Google, Google News, ProQuest, and Newspapers.com. The only sources that I could find simply quoted Perlmutter or mentioned him in passing: it cannot be said that any of them "addresses the topic directly and in detail" for purposes of the
undue. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep. Forbes article contains original reporting from Forbes at bottom of page https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30-2016/media/#5a2c11c441a5 67.53.60.250 (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I note that virtually all of the discussion here (including multiple "!votes") emanates from two low-activity editors whose only participation in Wikipedia seems to revolve around the creation, and attempted deletion, of this article. Relisting for broader input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 03:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Perlmutter clearly meets the BLP requirement for three notable achievements: 1. March 2016 negotiated Google Global Cache agreement .... see Miami Herald article behind paywall https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article170757412.html 2. March 2019 Negotiated Peering agreement https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/cuba-google-move-improve-islands-connectivity-62004795 and 3. Obama announced Internet center https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/03/21/obama-announced-google-fiber-to-be-used-in-cuba.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/3046635/google-to-bring-internet-to-unconnected-cuba.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.60.250 (talk) 04:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: 67.53.60.250 (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.[reply]

Delete. Source material barely mentions Perlmutter at all, and does not support the claim that he was instrumental enough in multiple events to warrant a BLP. The event Perlmutter was involved with should be elaborated on other articles, but Perlmutter himself definitely fails the notability requirement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksoze1 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Perlmutter is mentioned in all references and citations in entry. Not hard to realize he was instrumental in not one event, but rather multiple, and clearly meets BLP notewrthiness standards Lobsteroll (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)— Duplicate vote: Lobsteroll (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened after a "no consensus" closure and relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 March 21.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the AfD review, it was suggested by the initial AfD closer that all duplicate votes be struck to reduce confusion for whoever closes this discussion. I am in agreement that this should be done. Most of the prior discussion was done by two suspected WP:SPA, and the noise crowds out the commentary of other contributors. Ksoze1 (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck all of the duplicate votes I can find. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pppery, how about moving them to the talk page? The visual clutter is too much. Indeed, how about moving DUCK !votes too, including the nomination?User:Pppery SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ user:Pppery and @user:SmokeyJoe. Today is the last day this discussion is slated to be open and there has not been any additional commentary. Might you both consider adding your thoughts on the matter given your input into the relisting discussion? Ksoze1 (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage in the article isn't even primarily about him, it's about the internet speed efforts, the rest of what's there is....cruft. CUPIDICAE💕 16:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close. This AfD is a mess. Tainted by the nominator being a
WP:DUCK, and with a lot of other dubious input. Allow renomination by an experienced editor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 12:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Donovan (ice hockey)

Chris Donovan (ice hockey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails
WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best a Google search yields is a YouTube video of a fight. Ironmatic1 (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Another in a long, long, long line of NN hockey articles created by Dolovis, who was ultimately community banned from new article creation for routinely defying notability standards for the same. Unremarkable college career, ephemeral career in the low minors. Fails any iteration of NHOCKEY, all sources are primary, fails the GNG going away. Ravenswing 07:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. --Vaco98 (talk) 09:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hall Roosevelt

Hall Roosevelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Taking to AFD after a PROD was contested. I don't see a lot of evidence this guy was noted for much of his own merit (in other words, things that didn't have to do with family connections). Many references that do mention him at all seem more focused on other relatives. Being related to someone famous isn't by itself a sufficient basis for an article. As far as I can tell, he doesn't have what it takes to warrant one. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In my view, when it comes to sourcing the "what" is more important than the "why": if someone has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, then the question of whether they deserved that coverage is really just academic. In Roosevelt's case, there's really no disputing that he meets the
WP:NOTGENEALOGY can be relevant in some cases, but I don't think it is here: there is a veritable boatload of non-genealogical coverage (as discussed above), and the article describes Roosevelt from an encyclopedic perspective. Sometimes a merge to an article like Roosevelt family can be prudent, but in this case there's enough encyclopedic content to make that undesirable (see crit. 2 here). I thus feel that, given the sourcing, a stand-alone article about Hall Roosevelt is appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Due to accessibility issues, the only newspaper linked where I even can see his name outside of headline titles is The Boston Globe (the others just blur out the actual article) while and Eleanor's Encyclopedia just gives a title page and the aforementioned books only appear to show some brief quotes. What else is there that specifically focuses on Hall as an individual and isn't just a work more about his sister, Presidential uncle, brother-in-law, children, or wives? Something where all text can easily be viewed is preferable. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is often an inclination to decide which individuals should have articles based on our views of their personal merit or importance but that was rejected right back at the start of the development of our notability guidelines. No, we decided to judge notability based on coverage by what has been published externally and, although "published" has become assessed with increasing nuance over the years, plenty of appropriate material is available here. Thincat (talk)

Keep. There are three New York Times articles currently used on the article focusing on different points in the subject's life, and the NYT is considered a good source per
WP:NYTIMES. After the subject died, Time reported on his death (seen here), as did the Burlington Free Press (seen here). The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project also has a profile on him (seen here). Easily passes GNG for me. --Kbabej (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't have any concerns with the credibility of The New York Times. My issue with those particular links—and some of the others listed above—is that they require subscriptions (which not all readers will have), and this makes it harder to assess depth. As for your links, the Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project is not considered independent of the subject when closely associated with family (namely his famous sister), and I don't believe Time is either because it's largely based off her comments on him. Conversely, The Burlington Free Press doesn't rely on family quotes or affiliations, so that would help show independent coverage. That's not saying your others are bad, just that they don't help as much with establishing notability. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Military, and Engineering. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have plenty of coverage, including obituaries in major newspapers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with the other Keeps and, particularly, Extraordinary Writ and find the independent sources and roles the subject had to be significant and worthy, notwithstanding his family connections, which, in my opinion, only enhance his noteworthiness. In the article, I included the quote from his obituary from The New York Times, "even if he had not belonged to the nation's first family, he could have been justly proud of his career as an electrical engineer, World War flier, banker, financier and municipal official." Re: SNUGGUMS, I'm not sure why your accessibility issues with reviewing well known and reliable sources should discount the sources themselves. Perhaps you can request access from the Wikipedia Library? DACC23 (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never said those refs should be discounted altogether, just that their limited accessibility make it harder to assess them for depth and details. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ultrajectine

Ultrajectine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)

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

The article does not meet
WP:GNG
. I am not even sure the subject even exists substantially, that is it seem to me the adjective "Ultrajectine" has numerous vague meanings.
I have tried googling "Ultrajectine" and nothing substantial came up. Google scholar's 39 mentions range from vaguely refering to Old Catholicism to refering to the city of Utrecht; therefore, the expression is unclear and does not seem to refer to the "tradition [...] of the Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands headquartered at Utrecht, Netherlands." If one is to discuss the beliefs of Old Catholics in general, Old Catholic Church#Beliefs already exists to do so.
As for reliable sources discussing the topic, I found:

The Other Catholics: Remaking America's Largest Religion (Columbia University Press, 2016) states (p. 88): "The new Catholic church created by Varlet, Steenoven, and the Utrecht community endured. It gave rise to a new adjective, 'ultrajectine.' Like ultramontane, the word 'ultrajectine' has geographical connotations. Derived from traiectum, Latin for 'ford,' it is the old Roman Empire name for Utrecht."

The author also gives a narrow definition of the word (p. 90): "And while today's US [Catholic] independents are far removed from Varlet's concerns, they recognize themselves in him. They call him their founder, name him a saint, and celebrate his feast day. As one American independent website puts it: 'Meet the Ultrajectines.' " (the source for this latter quote is: Raphael J. Adams, "Meet the Ultrajectines: A Brief Introduction to Old Catholic Thought," New Perspectives (Louisville, Ky.) 3, no. 1 (2002): 11–14.); it is quite strange the author does not cite a website despite claiming to rely on one, especially since the website of the Old Roman Catholic Church in North America entry below has the same title by the same author).

The author also uses the adjective "ultrajectine" at other places throughout the book, but with unclear meanings sometimes. The author mentions an "ultrajectine theology" once (p. 110) without explaining what it means.

The 2009 Melton's encyclopedia of American religions mentions (p. 1151, entry "Old Roman Catholic Church in the U.S. (Hough)"): Joseph Damien Hough being an "ultajectine" bishop. Melton also states: "The ultrajectine element predominated, and whorship and belief followed the ultrajectine tradition."

However, nowhere is the "ultrajectine" adjective defined in the book (you can check for yourself at the Internet Archive).

I have not been able to find other sources of such a high reliability using the word "Ultrajectine", the source using this adjective are in general very scarce.
The old version of the article (before I removed most of the information two weeks ago) had no reliable inline source, and was a patchwork of copy-pastes of unrelated public domain encyclopedia entries. None of the original two encyclopedia entries given as sources mention the word "Ultrajectine" or the
WP:GNG). The Old Roman Catholic Church in North America website entry
is not a RS and is not independent of the subject (again, GNG).
So, I propose the article be deleted or turned into a Wiktionary soft redirect. Veverve (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like you've actually done the
WP:BEFORE that so many miss. Combined with zero citations, I find it easy to say delete. CT55555 (talk) 04:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

See also Special:Diff/633110498 on the talk page from 2014. Uncle G (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citing of Adams 2002 by Julie Byrne is correct, by the way, and not strange at all. New Perspectives was (for about 7 issues, according to what the Wayback Machine makes available) that organization's print magazine, only some of the articles in which are put onto the WWW site, the rest being available via a subscription to the print edition. That's actually a proper citation for the magazine article, similar to {{cite magazine}}, a better one than was managed in the edit history of this article (Special:Diff/632104292 using {{cite web}}), I note, especially as whatever print copies there were have probably outlasted the WWW site. ☺ It's not wholly unexpected that an academic does a better job of citing than we do. Uncle G (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a small stub using the book references identified by the nominator, and tag for more. Deletion is a step too far in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
tag for more: the article has been in a terrible state form more than 15 years, a banner is not going to change anything. Also, the scope of the article is still very vague when looking at sources. Veverve (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. This is a one-line stub, which is useless as an article. Since its implications are not explained, it is not even a dictionary definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: the one line itself is unsourced, so a merge ould be very ill-advised. The meaning of "Ultrajectine" is vague, but Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands states one of the names for this denmination is "Church of Utrecht (Ultrajectine Church)" so a redirect could work. Veverve (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Old Catholic Church of the Netherlands. There's too little to keep and even to merge but a redirect is justified. The sources and discussion above could improve the redirect target. gidonb (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge both to BirdLife Australia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Birds Australia Northern NSW

Birds Australia Northern NSW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)

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

Cannot find any reliable secondary sources; article is unref'd and appears to have been so for some time. AviationFreak💬 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating the following for deletion as functionally the same article:

Birds Australia Western Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 03:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: This organisation is a subgroup of what is now BirdLife Australia (BLA) and has been renamed BirdLife Northern NSW. If not kept, it should be merged to the BLA article. Information relating to it can be accessed from the BLA website. The same applies to Birds Australia Western Australia, now BirdLife Western Australia. Incidentally, listing it on Austria-related discussions is presumably a typo - try Australia-related discussions. Maias (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:24, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The BirdLife Australia article already has all the information from the other two articles (and has for several years actually), so a merge would in reality be just redirecting those pages. Steelkamp (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ~~Birds Australia~~ BirdLife Australia: They are a regional group of the larger group. Gusfriend (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China-Solomon Islands relations

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

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

Redundant with China–Solomon Islands relations which redirects to the quite detailed Sino-Pacific relations#Solomon Islands. Not sure if it is best to restore this redirect or move to the correct title with endash. Gjs238 (talk) 03:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and China. Justi yaya 09:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The recent security agreement draft has been huge news and the two countries have a long history of mutual entanglement, which is very reasonably documented. Atchom (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they started having relations just recently in 2019 and the issue with the possible Chinese military bases on Australia's borders in the past week is a very significant geopolitical issue. It deserves its own article. If China someday has a base there, I would also say that the base itself should have its own article. Reesorville (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the topic meets
WP:GNG. In addition to the sources in the article, some quick searching on Google Scholar finds in-depth coverage in other sources: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. But please do correct the punctuation, retarget relevant redirects, and move information from the Sino-Pacific relations article to this one as needed. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

M.E.I. Recordings

M.E.I. Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Draft rejected numerous times at AfC [13] but recreated again in mainspace. I'm not convinced that there's enough to meet NCORP - sources read like paid promotional pieces.
KH-1 (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
KH-1 (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I'd like to share this welcome message from the article creator's talk page: "Hi Meirecordings! I noticed your contributions to COVID-19 pandemic in Madhya Pradesh and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay." Ironmatic1 (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Much like
WP:MUSIC, I'd argue GNG is not necessary if the label has a sufficiently notable roster). I don't think there should be prejudice against re-creation here, if the label starts breaking artists, but there's no real encyclopedic value to our covering a label whose artists get no critical nor popular traction. Chubbles (talk) 11:25, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The sources, minus two of them, are all Google News websites which I was in the belief were acceptable sources. Mrmilesmayhem (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Ike Rhein, https://www.google.com/search?q=ike+rhein, is a pretty notable artist. The company has also worked with notable artists including The Game and Luh Kel. Mrmilesmayhem (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company/organization therefore NCORP guidelines apply.
HighKing⁺⁺ 20:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Lack of
WP:NCORP. DMySon (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was For Speedy Deletion WP:G5.
(non-admin closure) Tow (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Trader2B

Trader2B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Likely does not meet
WP:CORP. My research only appears to show newswire releases. Tow (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, Companies, Technology, and Florida. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello sir, according to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria, the firm has significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. It was acquired by LiveOne, Inc. (NASDAQ: LVO), with over 100 million users, in December which is also mentioned on many reliable secondary sources. It does not only appear in the newswire sir, it has also mentioned in many other reliable sources which I can add to provide more references. --Zabire Telsim (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a mix of behavioral and technical evidence, the now-blocked article creator appears to be
WP:G5 if anyone wants, or we can let the AfD run its course. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete -- previously deleted by admin.
(non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Rob Schroder

Rob Schroder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails to meet
WP:NPOL as a small-town mayor with no other offices held. Could not find significant coverage outside the local area. Sounder Bruce 00:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 00:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 00:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The NPOL defines notable politicians and judges as "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Coming from the fact I was able to find 30 sources either focusing on or including information on Rob Schroder I believe this meets the definition of "significant press coverage." In addition, the fact that Wikipedia allows for stud articles about people like Ygnacio Martinez to exist, the former Alcalde of Yerba Buena to exist despite only have 4 sources, but targets my well-documented article is completely unfair. DenbyDoo (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep The attack on him was very notable, I added in more sources. I'd do more, but was getting edit conflicts. I think this is an example of a page that needs work, not deletion. CT55555 (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E would apply, then. Not enough to warrant a separate article. Sounder Bruce 01:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
BLP1E is for people who are in the media for only one event, who are otherwise low profile. He is in the media for more than one event, and so it does not apply. The essay at
WP:NOTBLP1E explains this really well. CT55555 (talk) 01:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm changing my mind on this as I see the creator of it add in more uncited material and material not well connected to the subject. Delete. CT55555 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're referencing when you say "added more uncited sources." I would appreciate if you could point them out, but I feel everything mentioned is decently cited. DenbyDoo (talk) 02:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be easier if you just looked at the sections that didn't have any citations. Some examples of such sections:
Development

Homelessness

Protests

Committee assignments

Please consider the very basic baseline here that statements on Wikipedia need to be cited. CT55555 (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the article creator I am bound to agree. I feel that there is enough coverage of this specific person to warrant the existence of this page, but as the sole author of this entry it is rather hard to document everything on my own. I feel it should be left up and allowed to be worked on by others interested in the topic. DenbyDoo (talk) 02:13, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would recommend you move this into draft and reconsider your approach to this article. Rather than write and then try to add citations, start by putting in only what is notable and specifically about the person. It seems like you're trying to make an article about him and a lot of other things at the same time and I think more time learning Wikipedia guidelines would help you. CT55555 (talk) 02:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to style my article in the same way many wikipedia articles are written on US Presidents, they focus on events that occurred during their terms that they had a slight influence on. This can be seen in my articles by my references to the BLM mural, city baseball team, and assault as these are all events that directly involved or were pushed by the subject of the article. DenbyDoo (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if my earlier tone is harsh. Wikipedia is a complicated set of rules.

The way to approach this to be successful is research the person. Look on Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar and see what high quality sources say about them. Then design an article based around that in draft. When it's ready, move into the main space. If you move into space before that is done, people will propose deletion.

I think if you move it into Draft, people can help you get it to standard. I'll volunteer to help. But right now, it's in the public space and you are inviting critique of it before it's ready. CT55555 (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought pages in the draft stage were only visible by me, I'm more than happy to move it to the draft stage if others can still help edit the page and make it more refined/presentable. :) DenbyDoo (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
People can see the draft if they know the url. Do yourself a favour and move it into draft, get it ready-sih and let me know and I'll help. CT55555 (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A
chatter) 02:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd have to disagree. I contacted the mayor before publishing the final article and he confirmed he was satisficed with everything listed in the article and believed it was a fair and accurate depiction of events. If you would like to elaborate I'm open to it. DenbyDoo (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Though rare, a few notable protests have occurred in the city of Martinez under the leadership of Mayor Rob Schroder." Which had nothing to do with him or the city of Martinez in particular, and were not directed against him. The BLM protests would have happened no matter who was mayor or on city council. There's only mention of a bunch of attention-seekers trying to make a point. And now the original creator has moved this to draftspace to evade further AfD scrutiny. chatter) 03:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I recommended he moved it to draft and work on it properly. I thought that was good advice. The author is clearly new and acting in good faith even if missing the mark. Let's be kind. CT55555 (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound like I'm trying to make excuses, but the BLM protest happened because of the defacing of a BLM mural which was painted downtown Martinez with the express permission of permits that Schroder himself signed and sent for approval to the city manager which is why I felt it should be included, and the "Though rare, a few notable protests have occurred in the city of Martinez under the leadership of Mayor Rob Schroder." was a segway into the subsection, I was under the impression that was how you're supposed to do it, but I guess I was wrong. I'm still learning how to structure a page and publishing it was a mistake. DenbyDoo (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mayor of
SPEAK 17:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2022_March_29&oldid=1081229015"

[1] Feinberg, Scott (28 March 2022). "Academy "Condemns" Will Smith Behavior at Oscars, Sets Full Board of Governors Meeting". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved 30 March 2022.

[2] Patten, Dominic; Complex, Valerie (30 March 2022). "Will Smith, Chris Rock Incident "Will Take A Few Weeks" To Probe Says Academy In Letter To Members". Deadline. Retrieved 30 March 2022.

[3] "Why so many people thought the Oscars slap was staged". 29 March 2022.

[4] Independent.co.uk
. 29 March 2022.

[5] "Slapping Chris Rock Could Cost Will Smith More Than His Oscar". Forbes.

[6] "Academy "condemns" Will Smith's actions at Oscars, says it's launching a formal review". CBS News.

[7] Jurgensen, John (29 March 2022). "Will Smith's Oscars Slap of Chris Rock Prompts One-Liners and Worry from Comedians". Wall Street Journal.

[8] "Liberals and Conservatives Are Battling for the Worst Political Take on Will Smith's Oscars Slap". Rolling Stone. 28 March 2022.

[9] ttps://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/28/oscars-2022-ceremony-bungled-even-before-will-smith-slapped-chris-rock.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]