Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 November 8

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 the content. Without a strong case being made for deletion, the merger discussion can move to the Talk page. Star Mississippi 22:37, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cosnino, Arizona

Cosnino, Arizona (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)

Having reexamined this, I continue to dispute that this was a specific settlement. The estates mentioned are a subdivision a mile to the north; the school reference is fairly passing and doesn't indicate where the school actually was. There certainly isn't a settlement there now; from all I can tell it is a vague locale centered around the eponymous rail siding. Mangoe (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The City of Flagstaff government consistently identifies Cosnino as a community outside of Flagstaff city but within the Greater Flagstaff area e.g. "Areas outside of the City of Flagstaff city limit boundaries:
  WP:GEOLAND.----Pontificalibus 12:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as per
  WP:GEOLAND.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Coconino County, Arizona. I'm not impressed by the City of Flagstaff coverage that purportedly confers legal recognition; we normally expect a formal designation such as incorporation, not just a mention in a city document. Cities often discuss subdivisions, small communities, etc that they provide services to even though they're not officially recognized and often wouldn't meet our notability criteria.

As for the school, do we know what area it covered? In the early 20th century it was common for small schools to serve pupils spread out across a rural area; the actual location of the school wouldn't necessarily have been a population center large enough to support a school in and of itself.

Given the lack of official recognition and dearth of content, I think it makes sense to cover it within the county article until it is expanded, if that ever happens. –dlthewave ☎ 03:31, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am finding plenty of content about Cosnino on NewspaperArchive, including hundreds of articles. There are so many articles that it's been hard to sift though. I've gone ahead and expanded the article, including info on the Cosnino school and the telegraph office. I also found 1960 population data in World Book Encyclopedia. More work will need to be done, but given that Cosnino had a regular newspaper column in the Coconino Sun in the 1920s, and is also discussed in other state papers (Prescott, Phoenix, Tucson) from the 1880s to the 1980s, this is a
  notable community. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Nobody is disputing that this is referred to a lot as a locale. However, as such,

original research. For example, there is a "Pindell School Road" around here, and presumably there was a Pindell School, but there wasn't any Pindell as a town-like thing. Mangoe (talk) 23:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:21, 14 November 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.

PTI-609

PTI-609 (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 is about a non-notable chemical compound. There is only one reference; it’s a primary source and there doesn’t appear to be any secondary coverage. In the twelve years since the cited reference was published, there has been no follow up. In addition, the primary author of the paper, Hoau-Yan Wang, is under investigation for research fraud and has already had several of his publications retracted as a result. (https://retractionwatch.com/2022/03/30/five-studies-linked-to-cassava-biosciences-retracted - https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/18/health/alzheimers-cassava-simufilam.html - https://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/messenger/2022/05/27/the-next-theranos-an-alzheimers-drug-and-a-cuny-professor-face-questions-over-research-validity/ ) I don’t know if this particular paper is part of the fraud investigation or not, but it’s certainly risky to attach the credibility of a Wikipedia article to a single unreliable author. Overall, the subject of this article lacks notability and the sourcing for the content is insufficient. Reba16 (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's another paper (by the same authors) that also talks about it. This is probably not an improvement; nothing that cites it goes into any nontrivial depth.
  Burns, Lindsay H.; Wang, Hoau-Yan (January 2010). "Ultra-Low-Dose Naloxone or Naltrexone to Improve Opioid Analgesia: The History, the Mystery and a Novel Approach". Clinical Medicine Insights: Therapeutics. 2: CMT.S4870.
  doi:10.4137/CMT.S4870. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 07:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Inadequate sourcing, in a context where we might be inadvertently perpetrating a fraud. Thparkth (talk) 14:52, 15 November 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. Star Mississippi 22:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Reach

Atomic Reach (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)

No indication of why this software, nearly 10 years old, is notable. No recent coverage. Website redirects to another company. Stephen 22:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Internet, and Websites. Stephen 22:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Several Gsearch links to a sponsored post by a company with the same name from 2019, not sure if it's even related to this one. I find nothing for this software otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could not find any sources that are both 1. not sponsored post and 2. not a listing (sigcov). The sources on the article do not have significant coverage of the software and it looks like betakit does not distinguish sponsored posts. Looks like the AI sponsored posts are the same thing. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 02:22, 9 November 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.

Yehuda Levin (ambassador)

Yehuda Levin (ambassador) (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a notable person fails GNG. Lightburst (talk) 23:51, 14 November 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.

Australian Dancesport Championship

Australian Dancesport Championship (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)

Insufficient notability demonstrated; mentioned mostly and nearly exclusively in passing by reliable sources. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Events, and Australia. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 22:30, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no significant indepth coverage to meet
  WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 22:01, 8 November 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. Star Mississippi 15:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abdon Atangana

Abdon Atangana (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)

Comparison with academic papers published in journals, mostly predatory or pay-to-publish, in particular comparison of the types of language error that run at almost one per sentence, show a strong likelihood that this article is self-written. Quite simply it is fantastical to claim this person is the number one mathematician in the world or the number one academic researcher in Africa. He has had many papers retracted, as can be verified at Retraction Watch, where there is also copious other relevant information. This page was deleted before. I don't know how it came to be recreated. It should be deleted again, and a watch should be kept out for any attempt to recreate it. JJ209 (talk) 11:26, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Mathematics, Cameroon, and South Africa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 20:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and salt, more or less per the previous AfD. His raw citation counts are higher now but heavy self-citation and heavy use of predatory publishers make me unwilling to rely on those numbers for notability. And beyond that, we have only "heavily cited researcher is also frequently retracted" from Retraction Watch, not a great basis for an article on a BLP. Protection is called for if this is deleted, because of its re-creation after a previous deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS from the early history of the article, in which the creator added the Retraction Watch info and then was one of many participants working to keep that information in the article through a big edit war with anonymous removers, I have complete good faith that this was not a COI re-creation. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There seems to have been two listings for this fellow, I commented on the other one. I don't see GNG or PROF. Most of this article is about his math formula, not much enough about him as a person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: My take is that there are mild cases for
  WP:GNG
  :
  1. Mathscinet citations aren't high for analysis and there are research concerns (already expressed by others here); there probably isn't enough from the research side to pass
     WP:NACADEMIC
     #1.
  2. The subject being a fellow (not just a member as stated in the current article) of
     WP:NACADEMIC
     #3. It's somewhere between a minor and non-notable societ[y] and a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society.
  3. There's mild support for
     WP:GNG from the local news articles IOL 1 and IOL2
     , but the two articles are very similar and mostly interview-based. Almost but not quite.

So this isn't actually too far off from being notable, but it still doesn't quite meet these or any of the other standard criteria. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Despite it is claimed that this person is the number one mathematician in the world, he is not a rated researcher by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (see [5]) which is the most important agency for evaluating researcher in South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkSpo (talk • contribs) 09:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC) — MarkSpo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Question: if this ends in delete, should the Atangana–Baleanu derivative and integral also be trimmed from the fractional calculus article? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think so. The section there seems in reasonable proportion. That said, it suffers from multiple instances of the telltale omission of indefinite and definite articles, a language error which is also frequently apparent in many of Professor Atangana's papers and in his own entry that may be about to be deleted (again), so the section in the fractional calculus article should perhaps be looked at carefully. Notability of the AB derivative and integral can usefully be discussed on the talk page there. Personally I feel they pass the notability test. JJ209 (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt: insufficient notability in reliable independent sources. Predatory journals and self-citation are not reliable. But I agree that the Atangana-Baleanu subsection in the fractional calculus article should stay. This is assuming someone can find a few serious references (by researchers who are not Professor Atangana himself), which it seems to me as a non-mathematician that they probably can, but in any case that's a matter for discussion in relation to the FC page not this one. Jeeely (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)— Jeeely (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete and warn the editor of any further recreations of the page. The page is only about spam and selbpromotion. --多少 战场 龙 (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have reverted to a much earlier version of this article that does not include so many maths formulae and so much self-aggrandisement - just to give the article its best shot at being kept. I am not sure it meets the criteria even now. But the presumably bona fide Springer book Derivative with a New Parameter: Theory, Methods and Applications (978-0081006443) perhaps leaves a small room for doubt? JJ209 (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone has unreverted and also removed the deletion discussion notice. I will de-unrevert. JJ209 (talk) 19:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  His work has also been referred to in the New Scientist magazine: "How an upgrade on calculus is taking maths into uncharted territory". Both the Springer book and the New Scientist article should be referred to in the "best version" of the article. I haven't got time to add them. Sorry! Can someone else add them please?JJ209 (talk) 11:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  New Scientist is a

  talk) 00:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Information: I have revised this article to try to bring it up to standard. I don't know whether I have been successful, so perhaps it should still be deleted. But it is now far more like a normal Wikipedia article than it was. Can contributors to the deletion discussion please read the revised version and say what they think. Although I proposed the deletion, I am in two minds about it now. The subject is not the number one mathematician in the world, but he has made a contribution to a legitimate field of mathematics and the New Scientist magazine is a reliable secondary source. JJ209 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Mathematics in Africa started to edit this article disruptively again (putting it back to its previous lengthy self-aggrandising "number one mathematician in the world" form) as soon as he was unbanned. I have reverted to my constructive edit. Sadly I think he may act the same way again and have to be banned again, but as a note to my rv I told him he was welcome to participate in the discussion on this page. Mathematics in Africa also removed the AfD template, but this has been restored. JJ209 (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please provide exact sources for rankings of Professor Atangana's work by creditable institutions which state that they have disregarded self-citations. The page at webofscience.com does not say that self-citations were disregarded. It says "All Highly Cited Researcher records are reviewed for any research behavior which would detract from demonstrating true community-wide research influence. Factors such as retractions, misconduct, and extreme self-citation are all considered—and may lead to an author not being considered as a candidate for our list." That is not the same as saying they calculate rankings after disregarding all self-citations.

2. Do you have any objections to the Abdon Atangana article as it stands? Would you prefer the article to be deleted, kept in its present form, or changed? If you would prefer it to be changed, in what way and why?

3. What are your points relevant to the deletion discussion when you refer to the NRF, UNESCO, and TWAS? JJ209 (talk) 16:30, 14 November 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 2004 World Championship of Ski Mountaineering. Viable ATD as he's mentioned there. Star Mississippi 15:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Bargiel

Grzegorz Bargiel (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 ski mountaineer with no medal record. Did a

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Poland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I did not find enough to show
  WP:BASIC Lightburst (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete or redirect to

WP:NSPORT does not appear met either. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 15 November 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!} 04:16, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Junior Track and Field Championships

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -
  WP:BEFORE failure. I'm getting almost 1,000 hits for "Canadian Junior Track and Field Championships" (in quotes!) at Proquest. The nominator has failed Before by not doing either item C (alternatives to deletion) or item D (search for additional sources). Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: passes notability. See here. It's me... Sallicio!^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 19:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Was named the Bell (telephone company) Canadian Junior Track and Field Championships or some variation of that, depending on the sponsor. It's still an event in Canada. This article is only current to 2014 and needs an update. Oaktree b (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Sports. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:45, 8 November 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 or more specifically there is consensus against deletion. The question of whether to redirect or keep as a standalone article can be hashed out on the talk page if desired. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Baranowsky

Anna Baranowsky (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 sources cited in the article are either

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Psychology. Kleinpecan (talk) 17:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found a book review for one of her books: Angel Tsang, "Trauma Practice — Tools for Stabilization and Recovery (Second and Expanded Edition)", East Asian Archives of Psychiatry 2011;21:170, via EBSCOhost. Beccaynr (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• via ProQuest, she is also quoted as an expert in news sources:
  • "Help for Traumatized Frontline Workers" Canada AM - CTV Television; Toronto Toronto: CTV Television, Inc. (Sep 20, 2000)
    ProQuest 190433126
    (guest on show, "Anna Baranowsky, Traumatologist")
  • "Millions feeling radiated distress" Mitchell, Alanna. The Globe and Mail; 18 Sep 2001: A.7.
    ProQuest 384309646
    "said Anna Baranowsky, a psychologist who is a director of the Canadian Traumatic Stress Network."
  • "Ottawa `couldn't cope' if attacked: Counsellors would be overwhelmed" Rogers, Dave. The Ottawa Citizen; 08 Oct 2001: C1.
    ProQuest 240502086
    "Anna Baranowsky, a trauma psychologist who spoke at the workshop, said"
  • "In a hard year, 'Christmas Lite': offers the balm of a silent night" Mitchell, Alanna. The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont. 22 Dec 2001: F.6.
    ProQuest 384250273
    "says Anna Baranowsky, a clinical psychologist who is executive director of the Traumatology Institute in Canada"
  • "Airline mag plans Sept. 11 cover story" The Gazette; Montreal, Que. 31 Aug 2002: A18.
    ProQuest 433846297
    "Anna Baranowsky, a psychologist specializing in post-traumatic stress syndrome"
  • "Holocaust weighs heavy on the second generation" Neuberger, Adi. Canadian Jewish News; Don Mills, Ont. 20 Nov 2003: 44.
    ProQuest 351432066
    "according to trauma expert Anna Baranovsky." "said Baranovsky, a psychologist and second-generation survivor."
  • "Coping with disasters that leave life long scars" CTV News - CTV Television; Scarborough [Scarborough]. 03 Aug 2005: 1.
    ProQuest 190643010
    (guest on show) "DR. ANNA BARANOWSKY (Traumatology Institute)"
  • "Compassion fatigue: a hazard of caring too much" Johne, Marjo. Medical Post; Chicago Vol. 42, Iss. 3, (Jan 24, 2006): 19.
    ProQuest 228826336
    "Dr. Anna Baranowsky (PhD), a psychologist and director of the Traumatology Institute (Canada) in Toronto, says"
  • "OPP officers reveal their secret suffering: Culture of denial, shame obscures devastating impact of post-traumatic stress triggered by long-ago violence" Rush, Curtis; Casey, Liam. Toronto Star; 06 Oct 2012: A.1.
    ProQuest 1086509332
    "Anna Baranowsky, a clinical psychologist who works with police officers in private practice, points out" "adds Baranowsky, CEO of the Traumatology Institute in Toronto and author of What Is PTSD? 3 Steps to Healing Trauma."
  • "No more pencils, no more books? Fall blahs still hit adults: Even years after leaving school, end of summer can renew tension felt as kids, experts say" Ballingall, Alex. Toronto Star; 06 Sep 2015: A.1.
    ProQuest 1709592873
    "Anna Baranowsky, a psychologist, said" (discussing trauma)

Beccaynr (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Quoted as an expert in coverage of something else" doesn't help to bolster notability. In order to count as a GNG-building source, a citation has to represent her being the subject being spoken or written about by other people, not her being the speaker or writer of coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I think there is some

WP:NPROF#7, A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark. Beccaynr (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Redirect to
  WP:BASIC notability for a standalone article at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the Proquest references are compelling - and over an extensive period of time. Looking in Proquest, there's more, such as A psychological blow; Already reeling in a post 9-11 world, the crash in Queens sends travellers into a spin -
  ProQuest 270085244 Nfitz (talk) 03:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to [Traumatology Institute (Canada)]]. A lot of mentions/namechecks, but nothing significant. HCIhistory (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seems to have at least 4 works on GS with triple-digit citations. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 19:22, 8 November 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.

Tomboy

Tomboy (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)

Nominating this article iaw

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Springnuts (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This term is a remnant from earlier history. I'm sure that every girl born after 1930 is a tomboy to some extent; "not a tomboy" is absolute and doesn't fit any girl born after 1930. I know only one girl who isn't a tomboy in any way; she's a fairy tale character. I have a hint on her name; it has 2 words; the first word is something that occurs up north in January but rarely occurs in Florida; the second is a color. Can you guess her name?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That has absolutely nothing to do with if this article should be kept or not. There are a lot of things that stopped existing prior to 1930 which still have articles on Wikipedia. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:50EE:186D:DBB:626D (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was intending my !vote to be interpreted as meaning that this classification is not as natural today as it was traditionally. Georgia guy (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Dictionary definitions are simply definitions of words. This is an article about a concept, and one that has received plenty of coverage (there have been several books written about it, for example), and as such is a perfectly good topic for an encylopedia article, irrespective of any flaws that may currently exist. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Although I agree to keep it, I prefer that there is a generalized review of the entire content, as there is a range of fragments in which partial discourse and militancy are perpetuated, which is not characteristic of an encyclopedic article. Therefore, as an encyclopedic article, the page should focus on history, and only on it, because the section related to history is really very impoverished, especially when it comes to Hatshepsut and Joan of Arc who could very well be inserted in this article in return for dictionary shortcomings and militancy, I think there should be a Wiktionary article on the term and a separate page on the Tomboys' relationship to modern media for the LGBT+/feminist crowd to enjoy. In addition, the idea of "Tomboy" is not limited to the literature and has existed since antiquity. Therefore, I am in favor of creating the The Tomboy in feminism article and reformulating the present article.--The Young Prussian (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree entirely on the expansion of the history section generally and also specifically with relation to Joan D'Arc. JC aka JtheKid15 ^{(Communications)} 20:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The word has more than enough reliable sources to show notability as a term and as a concept. Yes, the article does contain a lot of unsourced content which is likely OR.
  WP:TNT. Grayfell (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per all above. It's clearly notable topic. Article needs to be improved and copyedited,
  not deleted. I really enjoy yuri manga about tomboys, so I may be not impartial here.a!rado🦈 (C✙T) 21:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, but trim some of the over-the-top language peppered throughout the article. For example, in the lede, the statement that a tomboy "fails to uphold their allegiance" to femininity, what does that even mean? BD2412 T 04:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article needs serious cleanup as it is insufficiently sourced and some of the text appears to be non-neutral in terms of its presentation of gender stereotypes. But the concept of "tomboy" is notable as a concept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It makes no sense to delete an article on a clearly notable concept (not just a term) simply because the article needs improvement. It makes even less sense to start improving the article and then add original research back in just so it looks more delete-able. --Equivamp - talk 12:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The only delete reasons give seem more personal and political in nature, not in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:50EE:186D:DBB:626D (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article certainly needs some work, but I reject that the topic amounts to dictionary definition. Tomboy is a mode of female social behaviour with half a millennium of documented history. The article's coverage of this form of female gendered behaviour isn't coat-racking, it's addressing the topic directly. SFB 18:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As above, article needs some serious work and improvement but to me clearly stands above any classic example of a dictionary definition. The concept of 'Tomboy' itself is a notable and important part of, for example, the LGBT+ community which explores in depth the concepts of gender stereotypes and their relation to and affect on identity. JC aka JtheKid15 ^{(Communications)} 20:48, 10 November 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 nomination withdrawn.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skipple (talk • contribs) 17:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Cowan Clark

Bunny Cowan Clark (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)

Sources nor article demonstrate notability.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Women. Skipple ☎ 17:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: May pass
  WP:NPROF#3 as a fellow of the American Physical Society. Curbon7 (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Regardless of the status of APS fellowship, she is also a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which is #3 conferring, so keep. Curbon7 (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just for the record, an APS fellowship IS sufficient to confer notability per
    WP:NPROF, and there are literally hundreds of physicist articles included in WP on that basis. PianoDan (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    Thanks for this information PianoDan, I wasn't aware of this when I made the nomination. Skipple ☎ 17:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi

    WP:WITHDRAWN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Keep if the infobox claim that she was a distinguished professor (NPROF C5) is verified. JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Verified. JoelleJay (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: here's another source with significant coverage: Byers, Karlyn (2 September 1995). "Governor Honors Powell Woman". The Delaware Gazette. p. 3. Retrieved 8 November 2022 – via Newspapers.com. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • She's also given lengthy treatment in Ware, Jane (1990). An Ohio State Profile: A Year in the Life of America's Biggest Campus. New York: W. Morrow. pp. 131–133.
    WP:NBASIC, with the sources mentioned in this discussion being enough to demonstrate the pass. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep. Passes
  WP:NPROF. In addition to the sources above and in the article, she has an entry in this reference work: Jacqueline Jones Royster (2003). "Bunny Cowan Clark". Profiles of Ohio Women, 1803-2003. Ohio University Press. p. 174. 4meter4 (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable under
  WP:NPROF per the evidence shared above. Topshelver (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Kansas, and Michigan. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:05, 9 November 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!} 20:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Fago

Valentina Fago (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)

No sources for her and I can't find anything out there to establish notability, fails WP:GNG . Non-notable actress. fails WP:Nactor. Yandeńo (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Italy. Yandeńo (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Theatre. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notable actors have lots of reviews, feature articles, etc. Nothing will be lost by deleting this stub. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Does anyone know anything about the two sources listed in the article? Dflaw4 (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it is important?Yandeńo (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, certainly. You claim that there are no sources and that the subject fails

WP:GNG. But such an assertion may be proved wrong based on the contents of those two sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Nothing on Newspapers extended. IMDB (not an RS, but sometimes it provides bread crumbs for research) says she was in Augustine (2012) but there's no there there. WP:GNG failure. BBQboffin (talk) 06:58, 12 November 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. While a valid ATD, it is unclear whether a redirect to Scarisbrick would be helpful, so i have not created one. Star Mississippi 15:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life (UK organisation)

Life (UK organisation) (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 subsisted on the organisation's website. I trimmed it back to its secondary sources. Alas, no significant depth, just significant rs dearth. It appears the rs' cover the organisation's various controversies but the coverage doesn't feature this page's subject. There's a little more sig cov surrounding the Tampon tax controversy but to spin it into anything more than a stub would involve barrel scraping. Eichhornia Crassipes (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Jack Scarisbrick - I can't find anything significant about the organisation which isn't primarily about the founders. I think it would be reasonable to have most of what is currently on the page in a section there. JMWt (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Meets (now)
  WP:GOOGLEONLY - relevant material is not easy to find when searching for "Life" gets rather a lot of hits! Springnuts (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Could you post a link to the sig cov regarding Life and the Tampon Tax controversy, please? I couldn't find anything. Springnuts (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

comment It's not really significant coverage. If anything, they're an extra in story about how the UK government allocated the funds. I got these results by putting "Life" + Tampon Tax site:theguardian.com into Google. So do you think this subject is broad enough for the three pages it currently occupies? Life (UK organisation), Jack Scarisbrick, Nuala Scarisbrick. I'll vote keep if you can convince me it has enough GNG to stand as a separate subject to its founders.Eichhornia Crassipes (talk) 12:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Agreed, what comes up here is a mere passing mention. Well, maybe a little more, but not significant. Springnuts (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the article overstates the importance of the Scarisbricks; relying on the friendly but uncritical (in the academic sense) Tablet source to support crediting them as “the” founders, instead of two leading members of the breakaway SPUC group which set Life up. When not working from a phone screen, I’ll try to rebalance so that Life is properly situated where the more academic sources place it, in the overall anti abortion movement generally and as a SPUC breakaway in particular. Springnuts (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh, in respect of the Scarisbricks, my initial guess is that he is probably notable, she probably is not notable. In our terms of course: all people are notable as people. But I have not searched for the sources. Were are all the articles created at the same time? Springnuts (talk) 08:03, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the references meet
  HighKing⁺⁺ 19:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per HighKing – no substantial coverage with roots. Notability is entirely dependent on the founders, and as we know, notability is not inherited.. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 16 November 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!} 04:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonica Rokaya

Sonica Rokaya (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)

News which are provided are Non-RS and

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DIVINE (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Internet, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails
  WP:ENT as well. ~ Yeti Dai (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fan pages, biofamous website biography, then the videos. Not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:14, 8 November 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.

John Atack

John Atack (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 rugby league player who fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 8 November 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.

Morton Siswick

Morton Siswick (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 rugby league player who fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:39, 8 November 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.

Billy Parkes

Billy Parkes (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 rugby league player who fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:40, 8 November 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 15:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. J. Ball

C. J. Ball (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)

Notability. I don't think a single obit is enough to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perhaps in general a single obit wouldn't be enough to establish notability, but the obituary is in
  WP:AUTHOR. His 1899 book, Light from the East, or the Witness of the Monuments was reviewed in The Times, The Guardian, Church Times, Pall Mall Gazette, The Morning Post, and Athenaeum according to this advertisement[7]. His book Chinese and Sumerian (1913) was reviewed in Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archeology[8], The New China Review[9], Athenaeum[10], Journal of the North China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society[11], The Expository Times[12], The Open Court[13], and I don't think this is an exhaustive list. Jahaza (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the comments above. I will add that Ball's books, though 100+ years old, are widely held in libraries [14]. Topshelver (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Jahaza that this many published reviews of multiple books is enough for
  WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per those above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination, I'm convinced by the above.TheLongTone (talk) 13:10, 15 November 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.

Harry Townsend

Harry Townsend (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 rugby league player who fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not finding any coverage in Newspapers.com or ProQuest. There do appear to be multiple individuals named Harry Townsend who are involved with rugby in various capacities (e.g. coaching) but they don't seem to match up with this one age-wise. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:59, 14 November 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.

Herbert Strutt

Herbert Strutt (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 rugby league player who fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 8 November 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.

Walter Hammond (rugby league)

Walter Hammond (rugby league) (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 rugby league player who fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 8 November 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.

Mark Colbeck

Mark Colbeck (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 rugby league player who fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:13, 8 November 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.

Charles Smith Jr.

Charles Smith Jr. (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 rugby league player who fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:15, 8 November 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.

James Sunderland (rugby league)

James Sunderland (rugby league) (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 rugby league player who fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 8 November 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.

Doug Miles

Doug Miles (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 rugby league player who fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 8 November 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.

James France (rugby league)

James France (rugby league) (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 rugby league player who fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: very, very minor encyclopedic significance as a player. --Melchior2006 (talk) 15:34, 9 November 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.

Terry Harkin (rugby league)

Terry Harkin (rugby league) (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 rugby league player who fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 8 November 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.

Harold Hale (rugby league)

Harold Hale (rugby league) (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 rugby league player who fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:43, 8 November 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.

D. J. Aldridge

D. J. Aldridge (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 rugby league player who fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:42, 8 November 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 03:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gaimin AG

Gaimin AG (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)

Does not meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Cryptocurrency, and Companies. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 14:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - G11 really - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The Investing News Network and a Zimbabwe newspaper turn up in Gsearch, some press release stuff on Yahoo News Singapore. Nothing for GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 16:17, 8 November 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. However if you want to work on this @Govvy: (or anyone else), I'm happy to provide it in draft. Star Mississippi 15:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beagley

Michael Beagley (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)

No evidence of

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Fram (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass
  WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft Of course there is evidence of notability, in all those cites, I only saw one good one. People use their words so badly these days, does a biography qualify under notability guidelines would be a nicer view. However he is young, has potential. Why people are so averse to football players and the football project these days I do not know. Govvy (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  About half of this website is articles about footballers, we're not exactly averse to having them on Wikipedia. If you've got evidence of Wikipedia notability, provide it. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:50, 10 November 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 14:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Taylor

Patricia Taylor (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)

Promotional BLP with no RS-- links are all primary and/or irrelevant. I could not find anything to establish the notability of the subject. The article's existence was challenged in 2007 at User talk:Delicasso#Patricia Taylor, with no reply. Blue Edits (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete She showed up at the Oscars with Keanu Reeves, she's his mother? I don't see much we can salvage. I didn't find any reviews of her books. Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• After some cursory Googling, Keanu Reeves' mother appears to be an English costume designer, so probably a different person entirely. Blue Edits (talk) 14:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Un unremarkable name like this hinders searching, but I couldn't see anything & certainly the sources are less than convincing, to put it kindly.TheLongTone (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, and Sexuality and gender. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not finding significant coverage in reliable sources Mujinga (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete highly promotional article which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Search in Wikipedia Library turned up many articles in Cosmopolitan like this one from 2010 and at least one similar article in Redbook where she is quoted as a sex educator giving advice, but nothing immediately apparent that looks like SIGCOV about her to merit her own article. Cielquiparle (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per those above. Promotional article on a subject who has quoted a handful of times in reliable sources, but not actually received significant coverage themself. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:03, 14 November 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.

List of Genshin Impact characters

List of Genshin Impact characters (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)

Trivial characters, mostly a list of

• Keep while most of the individuals are not notable enough for an article themselves, overall characters have gotten plenty of coverage. Merging this to the main article would make that article excessively long. Weapon, rarity, and element are inherent characteristics of the characters so including them in a list like this makes sense, similar to what we do with the various lists of Pokémon. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Video games, and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - while I've anecdotally seen a lot of coverage out there for these characters, this may also be a
  it's almost entirely written as some sort of video game websites how-to-play/help guide rather than an encyclopedia article. There's little salvageable here. Sergecross73 msg me 13:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: The characters and story have garnered coverage, and I don't see how it is a game guide or is deserving of a TNT. I think the table may work better than prose, in this case, as well. I'm also not sure how listing the facets of the character and their gameplay (i.e., rarity and weapon or element type) is unencyclopedic either. There could obviously be improvements, but AfD is not cleanup. Add a tag or start something on the talk page. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Listing off their "rarity", what elements they use, etc, is all very basic

  WP:GAMECRUFT content. It shouldn't be written in a way that is helping the reader play the game. That's not what an encyclopedia does. It should look and read much more like something like Characters of the Final Fantasy XIII series. Which is why I say, very little would be kept if we converted it to appropriate encyclopedic content. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Not seeing anything at

  WP:GAMECRUFT that says anything against such stuff, especially when such aspects are tied to the character and gameplay. Nor does the page "help the reader". Why? I Ask (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  wikias and IGN walkthroughs, not Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I mean, the element, or their "vision", is central to the character. It's akin to mentioning a comic book character's superpower. Sure, I could see a case for rarity (although, I disagree), but in a game centered around elements, and how a person receives their vision, it's a central part of their characterization. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it's not. Your standards for GAMECRUFT are far looser than the community's standards. If this article survives AFD, I'll hold a separate discussion on what info/columns should be kept/deleted/reworked, but I assure you, this sort of stuff is going to have a consensus for trimming. Sergecross73 msg me 18:49, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @

WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE: mostly non-notable characters with their in-game statistics mentioned. That the story of Genshin Impact and the game itself is notable doesn't mean these characters are. There's nothing about character rarity or character statistics in the main article, because Genshin Impact#Gameplay

is sufficient to describe gameplay.

These characters are barely notable and they've received very little coverage in the custom

WP:SIGCOV beyond their in-game appearances. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There's a whole article by Screen Rant discussing Albedo's backstory [15]. Not every character needs full, in-depth coverage. That would mean none of these lists exist at all. But a good chunk of these characters have gotten significant coverage. Why? I Ask (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does an article describing the character's in-game backstory help? What can also be used to describe a character's in-game backstory is... the game. Again, no significant coverage. Author of the piece, Rain Kengly, only writes about Genshin Impact, 86 articles on guides, items, weapons, and, yes, characters. Take a gander at List of The Last of Us characters, not "Joel can use these guns, has a health statistic of so much and can craft these weapons when in possesion of these items" but actual encyclopedic in nature with the focus on development (from third-party sources) and reception. There is no such coverage on the characters of Genshin Impact. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's couple sources on Albedo by Kotaku [16][17] and one from Forbes writer Paul Tassi [18] (yes, I know Forbes contributors is different from Forbes, but Tassi is fairly reputable). There are sources, you just don't like them. And this is just one character out of several dozen more. Coverage on a character's backstory may seem unhelpful, but it shows that there is coverage. And your analogy to Joel makes little sense. The Genshin list doesn't list health and the individual weapons used. It lists the weapon types and element which are core parts of the the entire character itself. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Providing some sources for a single character (especially one you even concede doesn't meet our reliability standards - Forbes contributors) is really not the home run argument you seem to think it is. I'm not !voting delete yet, but it's not because I'm particularly convinced by your arguments or thoughts on what acceptable content for this article, it's really more that I believe the sourcing and editor interest necessary to actually fix this mess probably does exist. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I believe that Tassi meets the subject-expert criterion listed under

WP:FORBESCON. And it's a game based around characters that fall into different classes. Listing those classes is encyclopedic. It's like removing mentions of DPS, Tank, and Support from an Overwatch list. Why? I Ask (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You're free to your own stances, but none of that is consistent with the current consensus found at

WP:VG/S, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 17:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Cite what stances oppose me. There are exceptions to every hard rule, and I think Tassi meets being a reliable source. However, if you're talking about not including weapon/element type and things, then please cite what says such things are not allowed. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please, @

WP:GAMECRUFT. So sources if just report on those elements, that's not establishing standalone notability. We need more to go on. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't see a criterion for lists of fictional works to explicitly require reception and development and whatnot. Sure, for stand-alone articles, those are important. But this is a list because they're is coverage on most characters, but not enough for each character to have their own article (obviously). It meets

WP:CSC. If you look up "Genshin Impact"+"Characters" in the WP:VG/RS search bar, you will find articles covering the characters, either individually (e.g., through release announcements) or as a whole. We have these lists because there is significant coverage of characters, but not enough for individuals. And this is how Wikipedia has operated with articles like List of Blood-C characters and List of BlazBlue characters since the project began. Barring some wide discussion that explicitly says such lists need to have each character intimately sourced, these articles are fit for Wikipedia. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge to Genshin. It's a gacha game that makes money on having loads and loads of characters. Necessarily most of them will have only passing influence on the plot. The list itself devotes a huge amount of space to game guide material. The sources as it stands is mostly development and reception info about the game itself, which would fit just fine in the main article. The coverage I've seen of the individual characters are
  WP:ROUTINE announcement articles about a new banner and the like. I'm also (not) amused by the implicit bias of the list, which includes English and Japanese voice actors, but not Chinese VAs of a game developed and published in China. If anything, it would include Chinese (country of origin) and English (language of this encyclopedia's readers) to follow MOSVG guidelines. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep or merge to Genshin. The notability isn't in question based on a quick
  WP:GAMEGUIDE. I believe someone can re-write this into an informative encyclopedia article. But if not then it can be summed up and merged. Archrogue (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Selective Merge for now - per Axem,
  Characters of Final Fantasy articles. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The notability of the list has already been established by others, and the other issues voiced are surmountable and
  WP:UNDUE. Jumpytoo Talk 21:10, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Actually,
    WP:DEFINING is illustrating the point you intend. Weapon, element, and rarity may be important to these characters from an in-universe and gameplay perspective (and they're easy to source from routine coverage from gacha blogs), but they're not important to the story or to the encyclopedia we're building. Of course merging the entire table into Genshin would be "undue" but that's not what I'm suggesting. I don't think there's anything in the (almost entirely unreferenced) table that should be brought over, not even the voice actors. I think a short new section should be written in the main article about characters, and then port the design, reception, and controversy sections over to their respective ones in the main article. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    If reliable sources consistency use the element/weapon to describe a character, then I consider it encyclopedic to mention it as Wikipedia is built to summarize how RS describe topics. Your suggestion to remove information such as the voice actor in your proposed merge is not what the current standard for writing character articles/sections is, for example using the Final Fantasy XII article mentioned by Serge, each character mentions their English & native names, their voice actors, and a plot summary. Such merge would also have significant issues about deciding which characters are "important" enough, and as a live service game will introduce more characters which would very quickly justify a re-split through

    WP:DUE. I could see a case of converting the table into a bulleted list similar to the "Non-playable characters", but that is a content issue which can be done on the talk page. Jumpytoo Talk 22:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    Just a clarification - reliable source coverage does not override GAMECRUFT. I could go find 20 reliable sources right now that say that in Super Mario 64 you use the A button to jump and the C buttons to move the camera, and that still wouldn't change the fact that we don't add button controls to Wikipedia because we're not a game guide. Sergecross73 msg me 22:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    To be clear, would you support removing the type listing from the List of Pokémon articles? Why? I Ask (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes. Sergecross73 msg me 12:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not a good comparison because no reliable source makes the games controls the very first thing they say about Super Mario 64 (it's not DEFINING). But with the Genshin characters the first thing they say is frequently their element/weapon. Regardless, if the consensus is to not have the characters element or whatever, that can be done in 5 minutes by deleting the column. It does not require AfD. Jumpytoo Talk 17:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    ...You're saying the jump button in a platformer isn't defining...? That feels like a bit of a reach, but regardless, that's another discussion. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The FF article also has massively more and better sourcing, particularly on

    out of universe aspects of the game, characters, and design. You're welcome to incubate a draft of this list that looks more like the FF character article but until such time, I will still support merging. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    That would be a great argument for promoting expansion, perhaps by changing it to prose form to help kickstart that. But the problems raised are surmountable, and do not require TNT. I also note Jclemens comment below, remember that someone has to do the actual merge, there's a good chance a merge people will be happy with would look similar to the FF articles. Jumpytoo Talk 17:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgive me if I don't have a high opinion of people who make sweeping promises of improvements if only you'd vote keep on their poor sweet widdle article. Experience tells me their interest in doing so ends as soon as the AFD is over (or sooner!). I would like to see a solid draft in my hands before I will be convinced. Until then, the article history in the redirect will preserve any work that's salvageable. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability appears pretty clear, the only question seems to be should these characters be listed in a list, as currently, or as prose, a more encyclopedic approach. The latter is clearly preferable, and the transition from where it is now to where it can/should be is fixable through regular editing so deletion is not appropriate. Merging would have to make the same transform, so while it is a better ATD than redirection, it's not clear that it's any less work than just cleaning up the standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Fancruft but justifiable as
  WP:N is established. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep This list was created (accepted from draft) shortly after I raised awareness of dozens of individual character articles in Chinese Wikipedia. Please refer to the zhwiki counterpart of this list and you will find adequate sources to justify notability. MilkyDefer 13:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep currently full of gamecruft but I don't think it's bad enough to warrant a TNT. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 10:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is a ton of coverage, although almost all of it is game-guide-spamish. Overall, I think
  WP:NLIST is met, and while I'd oppose creating pages for individual characters, a list seems fine. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Genshin Impact's entire success as one of the
  highest-grossing mobile games of all time rests on players spending money on the game's mechanics to receive characters.^[1] So I think a list of characters for a character-oriented game is not unwarranted. Fancruft can be removed without issue. However, I'm unsure what kind of information can be included as few sources go into much about the characters beyond the fancruft- elements, rarity, weapon, etc etc. At best I can find articles about controversies involving certain characters, such as an article about a negative reaction to a character's Chinese opera ties, an article about a mural with a Genshin Impact character being called "satanic", and complaints that Genshin Impact characters rely on colorism and offensive cultural stereotypes. The best I can think of is a list of names with a brief description of the character, much like the List of Harry Potter characters. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep or Draftify: I originally objected, as one of the editors who rewrote the article so that it included more citations and the like, to having the article moved to mainspace. But now that the article is in mainspace it is important to remember that deletion is not cleanup. This is a notable topic; each playable character has gotten significant independent coverage in multiple sources that are not wikis (like Fandom) or SNSes (like Reddit). On the other hand, if this page has serious problems that a rewrite is needed, draftification may be the best bet. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've went ahead and cut out some of the gamecruft information. There will need to be more encyclopedic information about the design of each character. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 20:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: You know, I could sworn I've seen this in AFD before, and yet there's not previous listings here? Maybe I'm thinking of a similarly-named article? Anyway, the "controversy" section along is, I think, enough to meet the GNG and LISTN. Sure, it needs a lot of clean up, but I don't think its bad enough for a TNT. MoonJet (talk) 03:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This went to MfD as a draft. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of? Elli (talk | contribs) 07:51, 12 November 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. ✗plicit 14:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Abbott

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 is an odd case. The disambiguation page is at "Abbott" with two "t"s, but lists two subjects named "Abbot" with one "t", one being a clear primary topic of the name by historical importance. Absent any Abbotts (or, perhaps, more Abbots), disambiguation is not required at all. BD2412 T 13:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 13:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, with additional Abbot(t}s now added. MB 15:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MB: I appreciate the additions, but if kept this should be moved to Joel Abbot (disambiguation); a majority of subjects on the page (including the only ones with their own articles) are at that spelling. BD2412 T 06:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @BD2412, no disagreement there. MB 06:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep several valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 09:22, 14 November 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. ✗plicit 14:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PEI Architects

PEI Architects (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 is a company therefore

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  HighKing⁺⁺ 13:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, the article has now been developed and sourced, though largely to niche industry publications which wouldn't help the company pass
  WP:NCORP. However, there is some evidence of lengthier coverage about the company in mainstream sources, for example, [in the New York Times] about their Chinese Embassy design and an overview of the company. Though some of the later coverage relies heavily on their family connection to I M Pei, I'm willing to believe this is one of the world's more notable architecture firms. Sionk (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as this high-profile architecture firm easily satisfies
  WP:ORG as well. Interesting test case, since a spot check of the category suggests that this is now one of the better sourced articles about a contemporary New York-based architecture firm on Wikipedia. Yes, PEI Architects (formerly Pei Partnership Architects) has benefitted reputationally from its association with the founders' famous father, I. M. Pei. While a degree of skepticism is wise given that notability is not inherited on WP, in this particular case there is SUSTAINED SIGCOV that makes it clear that his sons have made their own mark within the industry, as acknowledged by the World Policy Journal in 2010, and that the collective body of work PEI Architects has created is significant, leaving a lasting historical legacy internationally. Mainstream media coverage counting toward notability of the architects include: New York Times articles on the Chinese embassy (2008) and "The Delicate Matter of Passing the Torch" (1999); coverage of the U.S. National Slavery Museum's promise (New York Times 2004) and failure (Washington Post 2014); and the 2017 feature article in the South China Morning Post which discusses Sandi Pei and PPA’s involvement with the Bank of China Heritage Building in Hong Kong, as well as his family legacy. For additional ORGDEPTH, I would argue that a few of the trade publications should also count using extreme care: the first half of the 2008 feature article in Stone World (4 pages); the 2003 "Global Thinking" article in Contract; the 2009 Contract article on PPA's work on the Guanajuato State Library; and the 2002 article in Stone World on the Bank of China Head Office project in Beijing, which I. M. Pei himself said was the project when “PPA came of age” in his view. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Cielquiparle's expansion of the article. While I agree that the company has benefited from coverage about I. M. Pei himself, there are now multiple reliable secondary sources describing the firm and its principals in detail, which I believe satisfy
  WP:NCORP. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 14 November 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 13:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Khoga

Hassan Khoga (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)

Orphan page which fails notability Tiny Particle (talk) 13:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wow, what a mess of an article. I would lean delete on the basis of TNT anyway, but that said, this person does seem to exist and could plausibly be notable in their areas of work as I did find this professional-looking documentary. Unfortunately, I can find zero sources in English. Maybe someone who speaks Arabic or Russian would be of more help. Blue Edits (talk) 14:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is this supposed to be a discussion about a family name or one person? I can't understand what this article is about. Without a clear subject, you can't start to look for GNG. Delete instead. Oaktree b (talk) 16:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Egypt. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per
  WP:G1. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 06:37, 9 November 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 13:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical stability

Statistical stability (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 original version of this is more or less gibberish; if anything, it has gotten worse. There seems to be the common sense notion in the social sciences that one hopes that repetition of studies produces consistent results, but as it is, this needs treatment with

• Delete: This common sense notion is not developed either, but used as a vehicle to promote the initial authors' Theory of hyper-random phenomena, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of hyper-random phenomena (that article had similar issues and was deleted 2017.) 129.16.31.116 (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unusually well structured pile of
  WP:OR. PianoDan (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The article Statistical stability was essentially created in one shot, with references and all, by a single author, I.I.Gorban, the same author of Theory of hyper-random phenomena which has now been deleted. All the edits following the initial one were just minor tweaks. Seems like a case of self-promotion, or at least promotion of a field where he is the main contributor. So also
  WP:COI. PatrickR2 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The nomination's comment one hopes that repetition of studies produces consistent results is more clearly written than the article. The text tries to cram in just about everybody whose name is associated with the fundamentals of probability theory, including at least one who just included a coin-tossing example in a textbook (Feynman). I concur with the above !voters that we have a
  talk) 13:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep and stub. The nominator refers to an essay as a deletion rationale:
  WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  There's no stub that can be saved here. I'm happier when an article can be salvaged, but this time, the only relevant section of

  talk) 00:38, 15 November 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. ✗plicit 13:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oit Ihuk, Arizona

Oit Ihuk, Arizona (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 is an archaeological site of a former village, but there is no significant coverage to establish GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Arizona. –dlthewave ☎ 04:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete False content in article, needs more substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 13:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep added source from the U.S. Department of the Interior that lists it as a termporary, or seasonal, village, so per

WP:GEOLAND. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - populated places do not need to continue to be populated. And as per RecycledPixels. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT and MERGE into
  teepee on top. Maybe the author can find some non-internet sources? Cheers! It's me... Sallicio!
  ^{${\displaystyle \color {Red}\oplus }$} 13:37, 8 November 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 Oomph!#Monster and Truth or Dare (2008–2010). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monster (Oomph! album)

Monster (Oomph! album) (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)

Nothing on page to clear notability and all I could find was this charting in a few countries. That alone certainly doesn't convince me. QuietHere (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Germany. QuietHere (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably keep - I'm not a big defender of album articles in general, but that said: on the subject of charts it's not a matter of opinion;

WP:NALBUM states: "a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria:... 2. The recording has appeared on any country's national music chart." So, I think the issue here is that while a chart appearance is implied obliquely in the article, this needs to be documented better. There's also the Alien vs. Predator angle which touches on "5. The recording was performed in a medium that is notable..." In my mind the decision rests on whether this stub, when expanded, will more strongly reflect some of these notability criteria. -- t_kiehne (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair points, but I would be much more amenable to this if there was any SIGCOV available, and as far as I saw there isn't. I don't feel comfortable leaving an article around where three of the four sources are from the band's own website and the fourth only shows one single charting (not even the album itself;

WP:NOTINHERITED). It's just not a good look, y'know? QuietHere (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually the Alien vs. Predator bit is also about a single and thusly also

WP:NOTINHERITED, silly me for not realising that before. That still just leaves us with the charting and even if it is in three different countries I still don't think that alone in enough for a keep. QuietHere (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

All good points, and, again, I'm not a big fan of album articles except in certain cases. If the evidence doesn't bear out for a separate article, I'd at least want to be sure the prose of this article is reflected in the main artist article, so merge would be my vote. -- t_kiehne (talk) 16:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, I would be fine with that outcome as well. QuietHere (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tkiehne actually, most of what's on the album page is already on either Oomph! or Oomph! discography so there's not much point in a merge vote. The one thing I can see that was missing was the cover art contest but I just added that. I don't think there's anything else that needs saving. QuietHere (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I realise I forgot to write it above but I would definitely support a redirect to Oomph!#Monster_and_Truth_or_Dare_(2008–2010). QuietHere (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, considering a Delete, Keep, Merge or Redirect here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly clear, as stated above, my vote is to redirect to Oomph!#Monster_and_Truth_or_Dare_(2008–2010). Tkiehne's appears to be either keep or merge (though I disagree more with the merge since the information is already there, against as I stated above). QuietHere (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – I've reviewed the content and agree that we can redirect. -- t_kiehne (talk) 20:33, 12 November 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.

Labyrinth (Oomph! 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)

Only source is the band's own website, ELs are their website and Myspace page. Couldn't find any actual coverage. The

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Germany. QuietHere (talk) 10:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is this apparent charting in their native Germany. Still not enough to clear notability but it's worth noting I suppose. QuietHere (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've made an AfD for the album. If that closes as anything but keep then my vote is to redirect to the band's page. QuietHere (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 8 November 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!} 10:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fier Fair Football Tournament

Fier Fair Football Tournament (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)