Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 May 19

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Fraser (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)

Semi-professional footballer with no claim to notability. Searched in a few places but found nothing better than some trivial match report mentions in

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if kept, we need to be careful not to confuse this footballer with Cammy Fraser Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm. RedPatch (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - couldn't find any reason to keep. Jacona (talk) 00:48, 25 May 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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 21:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not a coherent topic, combining what appears to be a User-generated

It begins by defining the term, but for this it cites an entire book without page number, that as far as I can tell from Google Books snippets does not give any such definition or even include the term in its text (it does once refer to "genealogical fantasies" without a specific definitition distinct from those of the two words being used consecutively). The second paragraph seems to be an entirely editor-generated, unfocussed, description of some of the instances where such genealogies arise, but ignoring entire categories that are then included in the list of examples that follows. Finally we have arbitrarily-selected examples of untrue genealogies that combines everything from the sociopolitically-motivated medieval monarchical origin legends, to modern genealogical fraudsters making things up to bilk clients, to honest mistakes and exaggerations, to the relationships created by fiction authors to connect people in their fictional worlds. These are each distinct phenomena, only sharing the characteristics of being genealogical and not being true.

The citations are mostly to self-published or wiki material, with only three seemingly-reliable sources cited, of which two fail verification and the third doesn't refer to the example it is supporting as a 'fantasy genealogy'.

That some genealogies incorporate untrue information for a range of reasons is not something that needs a Wikipedia page to explain, any more than 'mathematical errors', or 'broken tools', and even if it did, this would not be that page. Agricolae (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Agricolae (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nom's description as "not a coherent topic". The first example given is
  original research, as Elizabeth II may be descended from the kings of Wessex, while medieval writers may have claimed that the kings of Wessex were descended from Odin, that does not mean that anyone actually claims that Elizabeth is descended from Odin. The article later says, "Fraudulent genealogies are created through honest mistakes, exaggerations, and deceit." How could a fraudulent genealogy be created from honest mistakes? An incorrect genealogy, yes, but not a truly fraudulent one. The article also mentions fictional genealogies from the fantasy works of J. R. R. Tolkien, J. K. Rowling, and George R. R. Martin, but has nothing substantive to say about them except that, indeed, such genealogies were created in connection with the relevant novels. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment -- This is a real topic. It is quite common for ancient genealogies to have elements in them that are ancient fabrications. This applies to all the Anglo-Saxon royal dynasties. These make the earliest known ancestor a son of a god, often Woden. In the same way some Welsh genealogies have purported links to Roman Emperors (such as Magnus Maximus) or to earlier emperors. One traces the genealogy back to a cousin of Jesus Christ. It is a well known phenomenon that links will be fabricated by genealogical historians to make the subject appear more important. This is a variety of myth. Mythical genealogies might be a more appropriate title, which would require modern fiction (Middle Earth, Harry Potter, etc.) to be purged (or split off) the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a well known phenomenon. As is the issue of fraud in genealogy, and error in genealogy, and exaggeration in genealogy, and genealogies of fictional families. For that metter the type of 'mythical' genealogies you are describing also exists in numerous flavors, e.g. linking to gods, prophets or figures from antiquity; de novo dynasties linking to the prior ruling families; political genealogies created to portray new unrelated allies as kinsmen; pedigrees full of eponymous ancestors of trabes and ethnicities to show that the people are really all one blood, etc.). The problem with this page is not that genealogies that are not reflect historical reality don't exist. It is that it doesn't all belong together under the banner 'fantasy genealogy', and the material provided on any one topic that is currently on this page is of such poor quality that any more focussed article woulld need to start from scratch anyhow (and not under this namespace, which is indeed used by some genealogists, but only in a non-specific manner to express that a genealogy under consideration is bull$#!t in a more polite manner - it has no specific definition beyond 'nonsense' of one form or another). Agricolae (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It doesn't make sense to combine two topics: the genealogies of fictional characters from novels, with the claimed descents of certain princes from various gods. Noel S McFerran (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It might be notable enough to warrant a mention somewhere else (and often are on the examples previously mentioned), but the article itself is wanting, and without much in the way of substance having been added, deletion seems the most reasonable course of action. Not to mention that the "Examples" seem to be a mess between fraudulent genealogies and fictional genealogies. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is really two distinct topics: family trees in the fantasy genre, and mythic origins of royalty. In effect, it is
  original research. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 26 May 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 Most Extreme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Despite the show's length I was unable to find anything but press releases and TV Guide listings. Current sources in the article are completely irrelevant to the show. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
  reliable sources
  .
  1. "Dr. Remote / 'Most Extreme' Leaves Viewers Hungry for More Bizarre Factoids". The Press of Atlantic City. 2003-01-28. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21 . Retrieved 2022-05-21 . {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help); no-break space character in |accessdate= at position 11 (help); no-break space character in |archivedate= at position 11 (help)

     The review notes: "Dr. Remote's Comments: "Extreme" is the most overused buzzword of the past several years, and this show's title feels like a forced attempt to be cool. But the show itself is very cool, especially for youngsters and adults who like learning bizarre facts about the animal kingdom. ... Look at it this way: "The Most Extreme" gives great, tantalizing tidbits about the lives of basilisk lizards and Tasmanian devils. In its larger purpose, the show should send children and adults to the library and Internet, where they can spend hours learning even more."

  2. Stasi, Linda (2002-07-05). "Quick Quiz: The Fastest Animal on Earth Is... ... Big Hint: Not Him". New York Post. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21 . Retrieved 2022-05-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); no-break space character in |archivedate= at position 11 (help)

     The review notes: "To keep the audience interested, "Extreme" goes for the cheap countdown trick - from the 10th fastest to the fastest animal. I hate the cheap countdown trick - mostly because I fall for it every time. ... The speed episode is fun, especially learning about the basilisk - a lizard that runs so fast, it walks on water. ... "The Most Extreme," is basically one part wild animal footage and one part computer animation, showing for example, an animal compared to the fastest human on earth. Upcoming episodes include extremes in "Survival" (think cockroaches), "Births" (think thousands of babies as well as gigantic babies), and "Eaten Alive," which highlights parasites on humans, and I'm definitely skipping that one."

  3. Spreier, Jeanne (2002-07-28). "Animal Planet looks at creatures who go to extremes". The Dallas Morning News. Retrieved 2022-05-21 . {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); no-break space character in |accessdate= at position 11 (help)

     The article notes: "Goofy, goofy, goofy, but kids will remain glued to the television if they chance to watch this latest episode of Animal Planet's new series, The Most Extreme. Here's the premise: The Most Extreme will show you the 10 most "something" of animals - best jumpers, best biters, best thinkers, best fighters - in this 12-episode series. Then, using lots of eye-catching computer graphics and peppy music, producers pull together an hour of video clips of various animals doing something extraordinarily well. ... OK, did anyone learn anything of value? Probably not. Was it entertaining, profanity-free and appropriate for most people in the family? Yes."

  4. Less significant coverage:
     1. McDonough, Kevin (2002-06-29). "'The Most Extreme' looks at strange animals". Record-Journal. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21 . Retrieved 2022-05-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); no-break space character in |archivedate= at position 11 (help)

        The article notes: "It's a jungle out there. Wild and woolly creatures of the animal and insect variety get the celebrity treatment on "The Most Extreme" (8 p.m., Sunday) a new 13-part series on Animal Planet. As the title implies, "Most Extreme" examines peculiar and little known facts about curious critters and their incredible ability to jump, lift many times their own weight and consume vast quantities of grub. "Extreme" puts all of the animal records in human perspective. For example, if a person were given the abilities of the most "Extreme" creatures featured here, he or she would be able to jump over an 80-story building, eat 250 cheeseburgers a day and give birth to thousands of offspring. Sunday's two-hour "Extreme"-fest looks at "Jumpers" (8 p.m.) followed by "Gluttons" (9 p.m.)."

     2. Bergeron, Judy (2002-06-30). "Catch some 4th music, fireworks". The Advocate. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21 . Retrieved 2022-05-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); no-break space character in |archivedate= at position 11 (help)

        The article notes: "Animal Planet goes to extremes. Shows with the words "the most" in their titles are usually found on FOX or USA, but this time it's Animal Planet offering The Most Extreme. The new series breaks down the animal kingdom into categories such as jumpers and gluttons, which are the subject of the series' two-hour debut special at 7 p.m. tonight, June 30. The programs will feature top ten countdowns showing the extremes of the animal kingdom, such as a bug that lays 8,000 eggs a day for years or a feathered animal that eats more than twice its body weight in food each day."

     3. Dederer, Claire (2005-09-18). "Now on Animal Planet: Downward Dog (Literally)". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-05-21 . Retrieved 2022-05-21 . {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |archivedate= (help); no-break space character in |accessdate= at position 11 (help); no-break space character in |archivedate= at position 11 (help)

        The article notes: "The animals' dignity is further tested by the lameness of the shows' production values. Take, for instance, "The Most Extreme." It opens with a voice-over (Animal Planet is big on voice-overs, as you might imagine): "Earth is a planet of extremes. Extreme places. Extreme animals. But some animals are more extreme than others." Every show features some new element of "extreme," which appears to be a fairly elastic term. One episode was "The Most Extreme Flirts." The show is built of the three elements most beloved of Animal Planet: the aforementioned voice-overs; the kind of seizure-inducing, pastel-against-black computer graphic extravaganzas that the Letterman show has been sending up for years; and, of course, previously existing material. For that is the true underpinning of Animal Planet: miles and miles of film from places like the BBC and Discovery Channel. Here, though, it is extruded into dementedly trumped-up dramas: "WHO will be the BIGgest flirt in the ANimal KINGdom?" (The elephant, it turns out.)"

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

  Cunard (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep based on sources listed above. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:25, 21 May 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 friendly type (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

The tomb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Gods and monsters (moon knight) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Asylum (moon knight) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

no evidence any of these episodes on their own are notable. PRAXIDICAE💕 18:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, without prejudice to their recreation. The author, MarvelWatcher10, seems enthusiastic and genuine, but might need to be pointed to the Draft namespace or sandboxes so that their contributions aren't deleted in future. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:46, 19 May 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. Star Mississippi 01:55, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm So Blue (Michael Jackson song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Poor sourced article claiming single release based on a very limited mention on polish and Italian radio stations. A search of news articles here finds very little independent coverage or coverage from reliable sources meaning that this doesn't pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 18:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Not sure why one would think a Michael Jackson single would not meet notability just from a check of news articles. I quickly found 3 books that have an entry specifically for this song - Michael Jackson All the Songs: The Story Behind Every Track, Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson and Michael Jackson FAQ. The last entry is admittedly very short and arguably not significant coverage, but the 3 sources I found within 5 minutes are probably not the only ones either, and even if these are the only ones and my last source is discounted that would still minimally meet the GNG bar of multiple sources. Rlendog (talk) 15:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets
  WP:NSONG per Rlendog's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:23, 21 May 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. No support for this nomination. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Louis de Pointe du Lac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't seem to be very notable, article itself is in bad shape with a lack of referencing and a primarily in-universe biography taking up the majority of article space. I think that the character should instead be an entry in List of The Vampire Chronicles characters only. I think that it could be argued that this article is notable based on some reliable sources analyzing this character, but in its current state I do not think that the character should have their own article. I suggest merging into List of The Vampire Chronicles characters or even the article remaining but being cut down severely on the biography section and adding more analysis from reliable sources. Otherwise, right now the article looks to me like fancruft. Roniius^{talk to me} 17:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Roniius^{talk to me} 17:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Probably one of the two most notable characters in the series, and the first vampire that Rice chose to use as a focus character. We shouldn't delete the article based on the fact that it doesn't currently utilize sources that could be used to enhance the article. That's an argument for improving the article, not deleting it. DonIago (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Why does it not seem to be very notable? Secondary sources like this book and this article discuss the character. The fact that they are not yet worked into the article is no reason for deletion, as
  WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Based on the nomination, this should be a merge discussion, not a deletion discussion. Daranios (talk) 10:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Afd for this character seems nonsensical.
  talk) 16:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Louis and Lestat are the two most important characters in Anne Rice's books. The character of Louis influenced a lot of other vampire characters. (1, 2 and there are many other books and articles about the influence of this character). It should not be deleted. Dynara23 (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dynara23. A look at the sources shows that
  WP:SIGCOV exists, which is enough to improve the article to a state worth keeping. The article could definitely use a clean-up, but that's not what AFD is for. If we're still left with a stub of verifiable information post-clean-up, we might consider a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, per Daranios et cetera. /Julle (talk) 20:54, 25 May 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 List of The Vampire Chronicles characters. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Molloy (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)

Fictional character with an article that seems to be fancruft. Lack of notability based on a cursory search, turning up only reliable sources that do not deal with this character much or fan websites. The article in itself is in bad shape, with only one source that is not the original novels. Goes against MOS in that it describes things from an in-universe perspective. I don't think that this character deserves to have an article, and should instead be put into List of The Vampire Chronicles characters. Roniius^{talk to me} 17:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Roniius^{talk to me} 17:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of The Vampire Chronicles characters per nom, which I actually almost did a few months ago but apparently forgot to complete. Valid AtD and helps the reader. Star Mississippi 17:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per comment by Star Mississippi. It makes sense to change this to a redirect rather than have an article.Historyday01 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. -- asilvering (talk) 15:15, 20 May 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Lightner (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 article about a fictional character seems like fancruft and does not seem to be notable - a search on Google Scholar only turns up a few articles regarding the author's work in general, not focused on this character. The article is almost entirely an in-universe biography. The article is also in sore shape generally, with no references supporting it and issue tags from 2010. Roniius^{talk to me} 17:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Roniius^{talk to me} 17:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The nom has the right of it. Not ideal to redirect this one, unlike the others, since the top google hit for this name is actually a postdoc at Aarhus with a growing research footprint. -- asilvering (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking
  WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete I agree with Roniius. There are no reliable independent sources PaulPachad (talk) 23:08, 25 May 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 List of The Vampire Chronicles characters. Star Mississippi 01:59, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

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

This page, at least in its current state, seems to me to be fancruft. A cursory search for sources on both Google and Google Books turns up nothing except the novels themselves as well as fan blogs and pages, strongly indicating that this article does not meet notability guidelines. The article itself in its current state is also mostly a biography of the characters in-universe and their appearances in the books, while only including a small part about the characters outside of the books. The article also suffers from sourcing problems, seeing as the only citation given is directly to the novels that the characters originated from. Roniius^{talk to me} 17:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, and Popular culture. Roniius^{talk to me} 17:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of The Vampire Chronicles characters. No reason not to. -- asilvering (talk) 15:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and/or redirect. No sources about these elements, and so this article fails
  WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect or Draftify Till the time more sources are found for it. Laptopinmyhands (talk) 23:52, 26 May 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.

Kathy Barnette (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)

She lost, so this (to my mind) fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There's a lot of
  WP:ROUTINE election coverage. The New York Times and The Independent "profiles" of her are not profiles in the sense of being a biography, but just a list of political beliefs and statements with some limited biographical information tossed-in. Curbon7 (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The rise and fall of Barnette during this election can and should of course be covered in the prose at 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania; however, I don't see how she is standalone notable. Curbon7 (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  What about this 2020 profile of Barnette in Politico? : [5] Thriley (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Unsure, it's about her, but also about a wider issue. Thus it might be argued she is not notable, the issue that she represents (republican attitudes towards one of Colour) might be. So I am still unsure she is in fact notable. Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it does use her story to illustrate a wider problem, but it is still significant coverage from one of the most reputable news organizations covering American politics. This is coverage in 2020, well before her senate campaign. Thriley (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:LOSER is not policy and her notability was not contingent on her winning office. She easily surpasses the GNG with national profile articles on her since 2020 [6][7][8] along with extensive coverage spanning two congressional elections. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The fact that she's been on TV, has had political ads put out for and against her in a US Senate race, and has run for Congress (House of Representatives) shows noteworthiness.Joesom333 (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:NPOL#2, she is a major local political [figure] who [has] received significant press coverage, e.g. national coverage includes: WSJ, NYT, CBS, NBC, NBC, Bloomberg. Beccaynr (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per Curbon7 and
  Talk 19:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep In-depth coverage from 2020, 2021 and 2022. Meets
  WP:GNG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, clearly meets GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Barnette does meet general notability, considering the coverage she received, but she is also very close to just being notable for
  WP:ONEEVENT. I think there is just enough coverage pre May 2022 and pre Senate campaign that her page cannot be merged into 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, so therefore, her page gets a weak keep from me.--Physeters^✉ 20:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: She is notable regardless of whether she won this election or not. Piratetales (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily passes
  WP:NPOL. StonyBrook _babble 22:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Does not pass
  WP:NPOL. The coverage for her is solely related to her failed campaigns. There is no coverage of her outside her two failed campaigns, and losing candidates do not get notability unless somehow their candidacy had an impact on the course of the election. This does not appear to be the case. Banana Republic (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2022 (UTC) Keep - Good references ([9] and [10]) have been put forward to demonstrate notability. --Banana Republic (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I'm not at all sure that "losing candidates do not get notability" is valid reasoning, and my personal OR is that she clearly had an impact on the course of the primary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Since

  WP:NPOL applies to officeholders, it does not apply to losing candidates. --Banana Republic (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It also applies to major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. But my keep was arguing WP:GNG anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion, if the coverage is limited to the election, then it's not enduring and therefore

  WP:GNG is not met. --Banana Republic (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  [11] is not about the election. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  And e.g. the WSJ: Kathy Barnette Scrambles Pennsylvania GOP Senate Primary, Drawing Trump Ire, Washington Post: Trump, GOP rivals target Barnette as she threatens to upend Pa. race, Axios: GOP panics over ‘ultra-MAGA’ Pennsylvania Senate wild card, CNN: How Trump's endorsement of Oz gave Kathy Barnette an unexpected opening in Pennsylvania, New York: Can Wild-Card Kathy Barnette Win Pennsylvania’s GOP Senate Primary?, NYT: Trump criticizes Kathy Barnette as she surges in Pennsylvania’s G.O.P. Senate primary. Beccaynr (talk) 17:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  All those references are directly related to her campaigns. She is not notable outside of her losing campaigns. --Banana Republic (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NPOL includes Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage and fn 8 states, A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. The references cited in this discussion include independent and in-depth coverage in multiple news feature articles, so there appears to be sufficient support for notability as a major local political figure. Beccaynr (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep - Meets GNG. There seems to be some misunderstanding of routine election coverage not counting as SIGCOV. Routine would be "The latest polls in the Senate race show Barnette behind by X points, but Barnett is confident she will win. Anyway, the other candidates blah blah blah." A feature in the NYT is not routine. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets
  routine campaign coverage, enough to pass the notability threshold. Sal2100 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Clearly notable given in-depth coverage in multiple mainstream national and international news sources and there is absolutely not policy against notability for losing political candidates. A number of perennial candidates have pages that meet notability criteria, especially those with notably heterodox views. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 04:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 10:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Fails
  WP:AUTHOR. --Enos733 (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I looked for that too, it would be interesting to have an opinion on it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She has received significant coverage. Furthermore, her candidacy was clearly an important factor in the race (even though she didn't win). Information about her helps the reader's understanding of the primary but the level of detail found in a bio article would be clutter in the main article about the primary. Keep per
  WP:SS. JamesMLane t c 01:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as a GNG pass. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Everyone here continues to use GNG as sufficient. The issue is that all of this coverage is in the context of being a candidate for office. Being a candidate for office is not enough to meet the notability requirements under
  WP:AUTHOR. The book is not particularly well-selling (even post-Senate run) and I could not find an independent review of it.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Per

  WP:GNG is sufficient. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• ALSO OF NOTE: The result for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette on April 19th was delete and redirect to 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania#Republican primary. The result for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette (2nd nomination) was Speedy delete per CSD G4: the article's content was basically the same as that discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathy Barnette, with the new version of the article not making any additional claims of notability. I've also salted the page to prevent this from re-occuring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpen320 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 May 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. there isn't consensus for a redirect in this discussion, but someone is welcome to create one if they so wish Star Mississippi 02:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Peniuna Kaitu (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 Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Football. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Angelo (talk) 15:49, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 07:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:PRESERVEing, should someone uncover sources from this small nation's small press options. - 2pou (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: No independent, reliable sourcing of this stub. No evidence of notability. No suggestion that his level of play meets any extant notability criteria. A
  significant coverage TO the subject in order to meet the GNG's standards. Ravenswing 21:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]