Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 April 5

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< April 04 April 06 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

House Resolution 2600

House Resolution 2600 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable law; sources in article are only the congressional record and a blog from Lance's official senate website. Fine sources for information, but not for notability. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United States of America. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 23:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. No reason for notability is given in the article, and the law is obscure, run-of-the-mill. TH1980 (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - apparently, this was not passed. What's worse, is that the same number has been used for two other bills. This page's existence is likely to cause significant confusion amongst our core readership. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I certainly agree no article should exist at this title. The most-used referrant for the bill appears to be the PABI Plan Act. If we do choose to delete this article, I'll probably create PABI Plan Act as a new redirect to
    WP:GNG. As it appears to have only attracted coverage from regional news sources, I'm leaning toward delete. But a more thorough search (I only used basic Google, not any news archives) might uncover more coverage. Suriname0 (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

References

  1. ^ Randall, Judy L. (2012-04-24). "Staten Island's Malliotakis out to snip red tape for business". silive. Retrieved 2023-04-12.
  2. ^ Collins, Lois M. (2012-02-26). "TBI crisis: As evidence mounts of effects of brain injuries on children, financing lags and Congress considers a bill". Deseret News. Retrieved 2023-04-12.
  3. ^ Lynch, Danielle (2011-09-05). "Legislation takes aim at child brain injuries". Delaware County Daily Times. Retrieved 2023-04-12.
  4. ^ Kurosu, Jason. "Legislators, Medical Pros Back PABI Plan Act". Crescenta Valley Weekly. Retrieved 2023-04-12.
  5. ^ Sears, Craig (2012-04-30). "Working nationally to standardize treatment of pediatric acquired brain injuries". The Hour. Retrieved 2023-04-12.
  6. ^ Grady, Thomas F. (2011-11-10). "Opinion: More support needed for National Pediatric Acquired Brain Injury Plan Act". nj. Retrieved 2023-04-12.
  7. ^ Donohue, Patrick. "Donohue: Get serious about brain injuries". MetroWest Daily News. Retrieved 2023-04-12.
  8. ^ "Congressman Lance Introduces National Pediatric Acquired Brain Injury Plan Act". TAPinto. Retrieved 2023-04-12.
  9. ^ "Turner Joins Sarah Jane Brain Foundation At City Hall". The Wave. 2012-04-27. Retrieved 2023-04-12.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 01:35, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

T-ara X'mas Premium Live

T-ara X'mas Premium Live (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)

Another contested redirect - with zero in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources. Currently fails

WP:NTOUR. Onel5969 TT me 23:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

In addition to the sources cited in the current article, many articles about the concert can be found on Yahoo Japan when searching for related content. I will attach one link, which shows that the judgment that this article is not independent is incorrect. https://www.cdjournal.com/main/news/t-ara/42215 Kloyan.L (talk) 08:05, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sources found are all promo, primary, interviews, etc. Fails GNG and EVENT, no SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  22:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:36, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable show, no reliable sources.
    • whaddya want? • 00:40, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

List of Mortal Kombat characters. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Quan Chi

Quan Chi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | [since nomination
])
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was pondering if I should stop nominating MK articles for a while, but Quan Chi's article is worse than

talk) 23:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Also found this. Not necessarily an endorsement for keeping the article, but worth a look.
• whaddya want? • 04:31, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I've seen that source when searching, but didn't post it, because Screen Rant, much like its sister site, Game Rant, is iffy when it comes to establishing notability. In fact, current consensus among the video game project is that these sources, while reliable, are not to be used to establish notability, due to their reputation of content farming. I don't really agree with the consensus. For one, these sites were not always like this. I think it should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, rather just a black-and-white statement that they can't be used to establish notability. A new discussion may be needed over at
WP:VG/RS. MoonJet (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Pretty much any Valnet Inc. hosted site falls under this category, yet they're among the few sites who even bother making the effort in profiling lesser MK characters whenever they're not pumping out the usual substandard listicle content.
• whaddya want? • 18:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I mean, I think we should at least be able to use them to establish notability, so long as they aren't listicles or mere announcements or something like that, which would sound like a better compromise to me. I might just go ahead and start a discussion on that. MoonJet (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Georges Marc Baudouin

Daniel Georges Marc Baudouin (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)

Declined prod. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Unreferenced for 15 years and the only coverage I could find is for a mayor of the same name in France. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Carey (journalist)

All prior XfDs for this page:


John Carey (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NBIO. Uhai (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Unreferenced, and nothing to demonstrate independent notability. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:01, 6 April 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops!

Ooops! (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)

Appears to not be notable, as nothing was found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2018. DonaldD23 talk to me 22:45, 5 April 2023 (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. Notability concerns due to sourcing are valid concerns for a deletion discussion, one that is not outweighed by the subject being interesting, which is not a notability-granting aspect. Aoidh (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Adams

Brett Adams (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)

Originally a redirect to boy band Point Break, which would be the alternative to deletion for this actor and singer who has only had relatively brief and minor roles in either profession. Sourcing here doesn't demonstrate a pass of WP:GNG, let alone WP:NACTOR or WP:MUSICBIO - and there's little out there other than other Brett Adamses. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alexander, I have added some more interesting information to the page and I think it would be more beneficial to have information about Brett Adams rather than just a redirect page.
He was actually the lead character in Byker Grove for 5 season and shared one of the first gay male kisses on national TV, so I think it is an historic piece of pop culture and of importance. The band Point Break was also very popular back in the day and big in Japan and other countries and he was also one of the songwriters and well as just being a singer. So it is nice to have all the information that is out there gathered in one place... I will continue to add to it when I have time. Andrewjohnmoore (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added information including WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO with verifiable book and website references.
Brett Adams was a lead character in BBC's Byker Grove from 1990 to 1995 (6 series) and had tracks with Point Break that where in the top 10 UK singles charts and an album in the top 20 that also charted around the world.
As well as sharing one of the first gay coming out stories and kisses on television in 1994. I think this alone is a reason to have a wikipedia article. Andrewjohnmoore (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, given the additional context from
    ping}} me in replies) 11:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:40, 5 April 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katalin Zamiar

Katalin Zamiar (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)

Like the other actors known only for appearing in

• whaddya want? • 22:30, 5 April 2023 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vahtang Hakobyan

Vahtang Hakobyan (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)

Article created because he came on to play 22 mins in a friendly against Israel to meet the former

WP:SPORTBASIC, even when searching in Armenian script ("Վախթանգ Հակոբյան") as well as Latin. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:11, 5 April 2023 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Picasshoe

Perry Picasshoe (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 young artist does not meet WP criteria for notability per

WP:TOOSOON for an article. Bringing it here for the community to weigh in. Netherzone (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Ada Apa Dengan Cinta? (2014 film)

Ada Apa Dengan Cinta? (2014 film) (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 GNG and FILM. Short promo film. Sources are promo and primary. BEFORE showed promo, Nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  19:52, 5 April 2023 (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 Surveyor General of Western Australia. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Sherlock Brooking

John Sherlock Brooking (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)

Zero in-depth coverage from independent, secondary, reliable sources. Current sourcing is only a government publication and a database. Fails WP:GNG. Similar to the recently closed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry James Houghton. Onel5969 TT me 19:32, 5 April 2023 (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 Surveyor General of Western Australia. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Percy Camm

John Percy Camm (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)

Zero in-depth coverage from independent, secondary, reliable sources. Current sourcing is only a government publication and a database. Fails WP:GNG. Similar to the recently closed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry James Houghton. Onel5969 TT me 19:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Lidya Pratiwi

Lidya Pratiwi (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)

BLP1E. nn actor with minor name mentions other than the 1E. Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (

WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  19:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete since subjects lacks independent notability, failing
    WP:NCREATIVE, either. -The Gnome (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2023 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Fischer (baseball)

John Fischer (baseball) (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,

WP:GNG completely. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and United States of America. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A source that's arguably sigcov here. I would expect that someone who had started nine MLB games would have sufficient coverage to meet GNG. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks trivial to me, but even if that is SIGCOV, that is only one source. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, its 11 lines devoted to him and has various different details that could be used to improve the biography; considering the accomplishments of this player and the great difficulty of finding sources (due to his age and name), I'd consider it SIGCOV. Now if we could only have another source like that... BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering what accomplishments? Also, I guess that would be SIGCOV, but we need more sources for notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we no longer considering playing professional baseball to be a notable accomplishment? If so, we have 1000s of articles to delete. Skipple ☎ 19:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I am unable to find a spot where we ever said that playing professional baseball was a notability criterion.
    2. Subject-specific notability guidelines do not replace GNG, as stated by the guidelines themselves. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    March 2022 NSPORTS discussion we held that playing any game in MLB made you automatically notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Ah, I understand. @Skipple: That would mean that we no longer consider playing professional baseball to be a notability criterion. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, sportspeople always needed to meet GNG, but playing in the MLB afforded a strong presumption that GNG would be met. JoelleJay (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ... a presumption so strong that it acted as de facto automatic notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By accomplishments, I meant playing nine MLB games (all as a starter, too). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anybody locate the source referenced here? It may be our second sigcov piece. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's what I could find:
    "New England League". The Sporting Life. June 9, 1886. p. 3.
    Carle, Bill (May–June 2014), Biographical Research Committee Report (PDF), Society for American Baseball Research
    Skipple ☎ 19:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skipple: I think you might have the SABR link wrong; it says "September/October report" while we're looking for May/June. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct! I must have copy-hyperlink-ed the wrong one. Thanks! Skipple ☎ 20:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to locate the May/June report, see here. It gives about three paragraphs on Fischer (I've copied it below):

John Fischer

This player started out as an unknown player simply named Fisher. He pitched with Philadelphia
(UA) in 1884 and Buffalo in 1885. He was listed as being from Johnstown, Pennsylvania and had in
fact pitched for Johnstown in 1884. An 1886 note from Sporting Life enabled us to identify this player.
"Johnny Fisher, the excellent Williamsport pitcher, has been released at his request, and is at his
home, 303 Canal Street, this city, waiting for something to turn up."
The 1860 census showed the family at that address. John was the son of Christian and Dora Fischer,
age 4. He was also easy to track through the Philadelphia city directories, staying at the 303 Canal
Street address through the 1890s. The 1900 census shows him living with his wife Mary and father-in-
law Silas Hepburn. He appears in the census through 1930, and Peter Morris was able to find an obituary in the Philadelphia Inquirer that lists him as the husband of Mary Fischer (nee Hepburn). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes
    Society of American Baseball Research and prepared by Bill Carle, who has been the Chairman of SABR's Biographical Research Committee since 1988. These sources, written over a hundred years after Fischer's career, are the antithesis of a "primary source" (as JoelleJay asserted above) and demonstrate the enduring interest in Fisher's major-league career. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Where is the secondary analysis of Fischer in the BRC newsletter? It just says that he played in 1884 and 1885, adds that he was released in 1886 with a quote from his hometown paper, and then repeats more info from censuses/directories, most of which is non-encyclopedic trivia. The only context it adds is primary, first-person commentary on how difficult it was to find sources on Fischer. JoelleJay (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to have a misunderstanding of what constitutes primary vs. secondary sources. The sources I referenced above were written by historians more than 100 years after the events in question. They are plainly not primary sources. See Secondary source (one "that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere"). Cbl62 (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a committee newsletter, not a published research or news article under editorial control, containing first-person investigative commentary from the author on how they found sources plus disjoint statements repeating what is said in each primary census/directory, without any analysis of the content in those sources. What info about Fischer do we gain from it that can't be found by merely looking at the censuses etc.? JoelleJay (talk) 04:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your effort to dismiss the source doesn't hold up. SABR is the preeminent publisher on baseball history, and Bill Carle has been Chairman of its Biographical Research Committee for 35 years. Gathering and reporting on primary sources is a core part of secondary historical research. The fact that SABR and Carle have undertaken the effort to examine, collect, and report on the available historical sources demonstrates that Fischer has some degree of enduring notability. Nobody's saying that Fischer is headed for the Hall of Fame, but he does satisfy our notability standards, having played parts of two seasons in Major League baseball and having been the subject of significant historical research by two respected baseball historians (Nemec and Carle). Cbl62 (talk) 12:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nemec has written biographies for all 19th century players/umps/managers, and SABR is attempting to write biographies on all 18,000+ MLB players ever, indiscriminately. There's nothing particular that prompted them to write about Fischer other than that they eventually got around to him. If having an entry in RaF (and Fischer's is below average for multi-game players -- note that sentences 2, 3, and 4 are merely reporting his team's performance in particular games, nothing is actually said about him; really, every sentence is just prosified stats except for #10ish) and a blurb in a SABR committee newsletter (which is very different from the peer-reviewed published biographies from SABR) is sufficient to meet GNG then the baseball project should have raised this as a reason to exempt them from the participation criterion deprecation. JoelleJay (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, why should someone playing 20 games that only get primary (the sources for your
    secondary sources link and for WP:SECONDARY say contemporaneous newspaper articles are primary...), routine coverage be more deserving of a wikipedia article than someone playing 2 games with the same coverage, just because there are more stats to prosify and thus a longer "biography" can be written? JoelleJay (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Sorry, but I'm not following your hypothetical. In general, I would agree with you that it's likely that someone who played 20 games is more likely to be notable (i.e., to have received SIGCOV) than someone who played two games. Cbl62 (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is that someone who played more games will have more routine sports stats reported, and more non-GNG/BASIC coverage of their matches, and these can be used to "expand" a WP biography. However, since neither the routine stats nor the sources contribute to notability (and would not be DUE in the article anyway) the many-games subject is not more notable than someone with equivalent sourcing depth but fewer games, even if the former's biography is 10x longer. This is also relevant for other sources, such as RaF or Wisden, where stats/matches played can be prosified without adding any additional context or even covering the subject directly. See, for example, the strong consensus to delete Uwe Bengs, Otto Oeldenberger, Fritz Sommer, etc. despite their having paragraphs of prosified stats on them in at least one book each and having lengthy de.wiki articles. JoelleJay (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NSPORT2022 removed the presumption that all major league players are notable but did not make a presumption that they are non-notable or a requirement that they need to meet a higher standard than GNG. NSPORT2022 referred the issue back to GNG. If all major league players (which of course is a small subset of all professional baseball players) happen to meet GNG (and as of now at least there are probably some that don't) then they are all notable under NSPORT2022 (without need for a presumption of notability) and that should not be an issue. Rlendog (talk) 15:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on the sources mentioned above and my general disagreement with the change in sports notability from that 2022 discussion where a handful of people just simply wore everyone down by continually adding new options until the people opposed to the changes simply got tired and left. Spanneraol (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot base your vote in an AfD on your opinion of the guidelines. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can base my vote on anything I want to base it on.. and that was just one of the reasons. Spanneraol (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: At the time of the nomination, the article was a brief sub-stub sourced only to Baseball-Reference.com. The article has now been substantially expanded with sourcing to two pieces of SIGCOV written by noted baseball historians as well as contemporaneous coverage from the 1880s. Cbl62 (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am withdrawing my nomination and voting keep per article improvements. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuicoleJR: Thanks for keeping an open mind! @JoelleJay: Can we now persuade you to join the Keep Karavan? Cbl62 (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources added are adequate to convince me he meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2023 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pool Party (video game)

Pool Party (video game) (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)

A non-notable

WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:35, 5 April 2023 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toks Omishakin

Toks Omishakin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 17:31, 5 April 2023 (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. Rough consensus is that the available sources are insufficient for notability at this time. Sandstein 10:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quenlin Blackwell

Quenlin Blackwell (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 streamer; being nominated for the Streamy award is a start, but she didn't win. Most coverage is about the potential "grooming" by Diplo, which is not enough for notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Reference
Youtube 1. "About Quenlin Blackwell". YouTube.
Instagram 2. ^ @quenblackwell (January 18, 2022). "HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME. IM 21 AHAHA (swipe to the end for a surprise🤫)" – via Instagram.
Promo 3. ^ Jump up to:a b "The Rise of Quen Blackwell". Sennheiser Newsroom. March 24, 2021. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 4. ^ Song, Sandra (September 2, 2022). "Quenlin Blackwell Needs Her Own Show". Paper. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 5. ^ Leupold, Dennis (November 25, 2022). "Generation V: Quen Blackwell". V. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Interview, Promo 6. ^ Canzona, Carissa (March 1, 2023). "Quenlin Blackwell reflects on internet comedy career during PPC, BAS event". The Pitt News. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 7. ^ Lil Nas X (January 5, 2023). "Quenlin the Entertainer". Highsnobiety. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 8. ^ Jump up to:a b Chikhoune, Ryma (February 23, 2021). "The Latest Gen Z Internet Star to Sign With Hollywood Agency UTA". WWD. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 9. ^ Kelly, Dylan (November 19, 2020). "Alton Mason and Quen Blackwell Star in SG Lewis' New Video". Paper. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 10. ^ Chan, J. Clara (October 20, 2021). "YouTube Streamy Awards: MrBeast Leads With 7 Nominations". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 11. ^ Weiss, Geoff (September 10, 2021). "FaZe Rug's New YouTube Original Looks A Lot Like 'Fear Factor' For Influencers". Tubefilter. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 12. ^ Parkel, Inga (April 23, 2022). "How to tune into the Coachella 2022 live stream". The Independent. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Promo 13. ^ Kim, YeEun (December 1, 2022). "Latto Fronts Savage X Fenty's December 2022 Campaign". Hypebae. Retrieved March 26, 2023.
Keep provided no sources different from the above.
The BEFOREs and table above showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV.
BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (
WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  17:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per implied request; while there is weak consensus in favor of deletion at the moment, more exhaustive analysis of the sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep; While there are quite a few sources which don't demonstrate SIGCOV, there to me are just about enough that do. She just barely passes our notability guidelines for me. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:04, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you list the sources you think pass SIGCOV?  // Timothy :: talk  00:29, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The article on WWD and Paper are the big ones. I think that the Sennheiser one also fits. Most others are passing coverage, but I think that the three I mentioned establish that the subject is independently notable. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 00:06, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Sennheiser source is PROMO and non-independent (they collaborated to produce a "mini doc", she reps their wireless earbuds (which are prominently displayed in the article pictures)) Red XN. The Paper source is a PROMO first-person interview consisting almost entirely of quotes and very limited secondary independent coverage (reporting what the subject "said" or "felt" or "aspired" is not S/I) Red XN. The WWD source is PROMO and has all of 5 independent sentences on her Red XN. JoelleJay (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the 23 Feb 2021 WWD announcement is derived entirely from this Feb 3 press release on ITP Live, a "leading 360° Influencer Marketing Agency". It is therefore NOT independent and definitely PROMO. JoelleJay (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The WWD article being "entirely derived" from the ITP article and that article being a press release are both
WP:OR. Based on what I'm seeing, they're also inaccurate. Both articles contain information that the other lacks, and there is another report of the signing in Billboard that has even more information not included in either the ITP or WWD articles. benǝʇᴉɯ 09:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
...Have you looked at ITP? It is literally an influencer brand management company, not a news group. Nothing coming out of it is independent. That eliminates the bolded text of WWD's Quen Blackwell is now added to the bunch. The 20-year-old began garnering attention at the age of 14 for her comedic videos on Vine, the now defunct app. She has more than 10 million followers across her social platforms, including 5.4 million on TikTok. Most recently, Blackwell appeared in the “Mean Girls”-inspired ad campaign for pop star Halsey’s beauty brand, About-Face. Blackwell was also seen in Diplo’s music video for the single “Horizon” and has partnered with companies and brands that include Amazon and Kim Kardashian West’s Skims. (compare to ITP's The star – who is now 20 – initially rose to fame on Vine with her comedic videos at the age of 14. She then moved on to TikTok – where she grew an overall audience of 5.7 million followers on TikTok and 1.7 million on Instagram. Her comedic talent, charismatic personality, and large fan-base resulted in multiple big brands such as Puma, Kim Kardashian’s Skims and Halsey’s About Face makeup brand reaching out to Blackwell to feature her in campaigns.)
What little additional detail is provided in WWD and Billboard are nowhere close to SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is well-spotted. I think that leads me to re-assess the WWD article as not adding sufficiently more than the press release. Suriname0 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ITP ref is, to our knowledge, not a press release. It is in the website's news section, where other social media news that is evidently not promotional is published. It is never called a press release, which would be rare for a site that only puts out press releases (i.e., AP's press release section, PR Newswire.) Saying that it is and that "nothing coming out of it is independent" is
WP:OR here is claiming that both WWD and Billboard got their information from that article when neither of them mention ITP as a source. Two reliable sources reporting on a story that another less reliable source reported on beforehand does not mean that the latter cancels out the former if neither are using the latter as a source. benǝʇᴉɯ 06:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I found the original source for the extremely similar WWD etc. announcements (sans the Blackwell reaction quote): this piece (published Jan 4 2021) by a company that styles itself as "The market leading resource for verified contacts, insight, industry planning information and audience demographics data, unavailable from any other source. Identify editorial, PR, dressing, gifting and product placement opportunities and target your influencer and talent marketing outreach using the industry's preferred planning calendar and contacts directory." Among its services are "Direct contacts (agents, management, publicists, stylists...) and social audience insight for 60,000+ personalities and influencers, including the nichest talent, enabling outreach and engagement" and "Connect with over 50,000 international agents, publicists, managers, PR contacts, [...]". At the end of its announcement for Blackwell, The Media Eye offers subscriber-only "full contact details". JoelleJay (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep - I think I disagree with JoelleJay about the Paper and WWD sources. (Sennheiser is definitely non-independent.) See my assessment below. Suriname0 (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Updated vote due the discussion about the WWD source above. I left the table as-is, but I think WWD does not meet SIGCOV. Suriname0 (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Selective quotation" still does not count towards GNG: nothing that comes from the subject herself is secondary or independent. And editorial commentary must be secondary itself; most of what is said by the interviewer is in first-person. JoelleJay (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I see several instances that I interpret as editorial commentary, not in first person, that summarizes both what Blackwell is saying and potentially other information, for example: When Vine came around, Blackwell decided to pivot towards short-form comedy content under the name “Quensadilla,” which quickly earned her a devoted fan base that eventually followed her to TikTok once the six-second video sharing platform shut down in 2016. and Blackwell is now shifting her energy towards the IRL endeavors she’s always dreamt of through the industry connections she’s made thanks to her current position, meaning lots of acting lessons, learning about screenwriting and live stand-up sets, where she’ll have plenty to talk about. Suriname0 (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Suriname0
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
V Magazine Yes Yes ~ The source discusses the subject directly, but without much detail and primarily relying on quotes ~ Partial
Paper Magazine Yes While the article is based on an interview, selective quotation and editorial commentary indicate secondary coverage Yes Yes ✔ Yes
WWD Yes Yes Yes Article is short, but meets the "1+ paragraph of non-quotations" threshold I tend to use for sources like this ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
  • Keep per the source analysis provided by Suriname0, which is much more in depth than the earlier one provided by TimothyBlue (which I referred to as “weak” at the recent deletion review and still find it to be weak). Frank Anchor 22:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would normally warrant some explanation, but let's move on. -The Gnome (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2023 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leah Ryerse

Leah Ryerse (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)

Completely unsourced article about a beauty pageant contestant. As always, this isn't an automatic inclusion freebie in and of itself — it would be an acceptable notability claim if the article were

WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2023 (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 14:47, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Zhuo Yan

Lin Zhuo Yan (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)

nearly all of the article claims in the body are unsourced and I cannot locate English language sources on the subject, a BLP. therefore fails WP:N. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source evail:
  • Failed V, 404, primary, no evidence of pages existence in internet archives :: 1.  "Council of China's Foreign Trade— ZhuoYan Lin". CCPIT. May 8, 1996.
  • Failed V, 404, no evidence of articles existence in internet archives :: 2. ^ "Fashion, but at a bargain price". People’S Daily. February 21, 2011.
  • Failed V, 404, primary, no evidence of pages existence in internet archives :: 3. ^ "OUTLET(CHINA)LIMITED". OUTLET. May 5, 2008.
  • Failed V, 404, no evidence of articles existence in internet archives :: 4. ^ "How a top-tier HK builder got into trouble". EJ Insight. 2017-05-12. Retrieved 2018-03-20.
  • Failed V, 404, no evidence of articles existence in internet archives :: 5. ^ "Chairman of German Outlet Chamber met with ZhuoYan Lin". OUTLET(CHINA)LIMITED. June 3, 2011.
  • It works, but it is an interview. Appears to be the same article as #2 above :: 6. ^ "Outlet in China". China.org.cn. February 22, 2011.
  • Failed V, 404, primary, no evidence of pages existence in internet archives :: 7. ^ "OUTLET(CHINA)LIMITED". OUTLET. May 5, 2008.
  • it works, but no SIGCOV about the subject :: 8. ^ "Home advantage". China Daily European Weekly. May 25, 2012.
As stated above, a significant number of the search results are not IS, but government sources.
WP:SIGCOV). This article needs to be deleted before redirect because it is a very poorly sourced BLP; no objection to redirect if deleted first.  // Timothy :: talk  01:45, 7 April 2023 (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 TimothyBlue cites a source, they do not explain how the subject is covered in this source in a way that would convey notability, and neither is that apparent from the article, as The Gnome points out. Sandstein 10:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sidda Reddy Ankireddypalli

Sidda Reddy Ankireddypalli (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)

There's no evidence of notability in these sources, which mention Sidda Reddy Ankireddypalli only in passing without any particular focus on him. The doctor doesnt satisfy

WP:SIGCOV criteria. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Definitely more notable than most of the the athlete articles.  // Timothy :: talk  04:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We have a text about a neurosurgeon. I mean, that is the whole text. It veritably reads: This is a neurosurgeon. End of text. One cannot help but admire the chutzpah but one is also nonplussed. The sources confirm that he is a neurosurgeon who is active as a neurosurgeon. That is all. The case is blatantly not made that this is an individual who merits to have a Wikipedia article about him more than the millions of neurosurgeons around the world. It is not even funny. -The Gnome (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

KGOC Global

KGOC Global (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)

I question whether this organization passes the

needs independent third party verification

I note that

As always, please do prove me wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:19, 5 April 2023 (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 14:49, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Abdullayev

Vadim Abdullayev (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)

Unsourced BLP except for stats. Fails GNG and BIO. BEFORE showed stats, ROUTINE, database, primary. Nothing that meets IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.

BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (

WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  14:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

@GiantSnowman:, I found many sources (see below). Clearly significant figure in Azerbaijani league football with ongoing career and 60+ appearances in fully pto Azerbaijani top flight. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - @GiantSnowman:, I found [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10], among many many more Azerbaijani and Russian sources. Clearly significant figure in Azerbaijani league football with ongoing career and 60+ appearances in fully pto Azerbaijani top flight. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. None of the above sources provide significant coverage of him. Dougal18 (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least a few of them go into his background and career. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree with Dougal, looks to be a few interviews in local press and that's about it? GiantSnowman 07:48, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:, Based on my experience, former Soviet states tend to have interviews as one of the highest forms of sports coverage compared to other countries. Based on that, Abdullayev is clearly a significant figure in Azerbaijani league football with ongoing career and 60+ appearances in fully pto Azerbaijani top flight. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 10:02, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Based on my experience, former Soviet states tend to have interviews as one of the highest forms of sports coverage compared to other countries." - That's not been my experience at all. Take Gennady Smirnov (an article I created a few years ago) for example; he was a significant figure and was profiled after retirement, and again after dying. Jogurney (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jogurney:, I looked at your other articles about Soviet footballers (e.g. Almaz Chokmorov, Valery Reinhold, Leanid Harai, Vladimir Bychek, Viktor Razumovskiy, and Yuri Gladkikh), and more often than not the main sources are interviews, with the other source(s) a tribute after they died. Again, I'm not saying it is true for all cases, but more often than not in my experience, and based on your articles I mentioned earlier, former Soviet states tend to have interviews as one of the highest forms of sports coverage compared to other countries. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that's true, it doesn't change the fact that content the subject says about themselves is not independent or secondary and cannot count towards GNG. You know this. JoelleJay (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you left out
WP:IAR regarding Soviet-era sportspeople (I'm not saying we should), we would need much more of a reason to do that with a middling sportsperson from the Internet-era. Jogurney (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2023 (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. Aoidh (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Forman (radio)

Bill Forman (radio) (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)

Subject may not be notable enough to deserve its standalone article. The subject was a radio announcer and actor. The sources establish only two things. That Bill Forman (Sometimes mentioned Bill Forman) was a real person, who worked at KMPC, and has also appeared on 'The Whistler'.

WP:ENT
states that for notability, the subject should have significant roles in multiple notable productions, which this article clearly fails.
WP:SUSTAINED
states that the subject should have sustained coverage, rather than brief bursts of news coverage. The sources however, establish that the subject only received 'brief bursts' of coverage over a few decades.


Summary of what the sources provide:

  • Source 1 trivially mentions the subject appearing on 'The Whistler'. (This source isn't significant coverage)
  • Source 2 gives a biography of Forman, while establishing the fact that he has worked in 'The Whistler'. (The only source that extensively covers the subject of the article.
  • Source 3[1] trivially mentions Foreman (instead of Forman) while establishing the fact that he worked at KMPC. (This source isn't significant coverage)
  • Source 4[2] again mentions that Foreman has joined KMPC. (This source isn't significant coverage)
  • Source 5 covers that the subject has appeared in 'The Whistler'.
  • Source 7[3] is an analysis that again, trivially mentions that the subject was an announcer. (This source isn't significant coverage)

I couldn't find any information about source 8, 9. From what I've concluded:

  • Volume 191 of Variety magazine was published on July 1, 1953, NOT July 8, 1953.[4] Whose page 24 neither has an article from someone named Herm, nor mentions Tony Martin Show, and thus the subject of the article.
  • Volume 158, May 1945 edition of Variety Magazine was published on May 2, 1945, and NOT May 16, 1945 as claimed in the references.[5] Whose 55th page doesn't have an article titled "Chatter: Hollywood".

The article was previously moved to draft, per

WP:DRAFTIFY
, as the author claims that the subject is notable and the article will receive updates in the future. The article was then proposed for deletion, but the author failed to address the concerns mentioned above while removing prod. EnormityOP (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://mediahistoryproject.org/reader.php?id=variety138-1940-05
  2. ^ https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-BC/BC-1942/1942-03-02-BC.pdf
  3. ^ https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Billboard/40s/1947/BB-1947-10-04.pdf
  4. ^ https://mediahistoryproject.org/reader.php?id=variety191-1953-07
  5. ^ https://archive.org/details/variety158-1945-05/page/n53/mode/2up
  • Speedy keep -- quite notable! The announcer and/or narrator on numerous radio shows, including some shows that ran 5-10+ years. A picture of notability and well-sourced.
    Addressing the prod points:
    "The subject was a radio announcer and actor. The sources establish only two things. That Bill Forman (Sometimes mentioned Bill Forman) was a real person, who worked at KMPC, and has also appeared on 'The Whistler'. WP:ENT states that for notability, the subject should have significant roles in multiple notable productions, which this article clearly fails."
    I think you mean sometimes written as "Bill Foreman". Kay Kyser's show, the Zane Grey Show, and The Tony Martin Show are not notable productions or the sources do not support that he was on those shows? It clearly passes.
    "Summary of what the sources provide: Source 1 trivially mentions the subject appearing on 'The Whistler'. (This source isn't significant coverage) Source 2 gives a biography of Forman, while establishing the fact that he has worked in 'The Whistler'. Source 3[1] trivially mentions Foreman (instead of Forman) while establishing the fact that he worked at KMPC. (This source isn't significant coverage) Source 4[2] again mentions that Foreman has joined KMPC. (This source isn't significant coverage) Source 5 covers that the subject has appeared in 'The Whistler'. Source 7[3] is an analysis that again, trivially mentions that the subject was an announcer. (This source isn't significant coverage)"
    So source 2 is significant coverage. Source 3 is brief, but you have confused "brief" with "trivial"; he is the subject of the coverage there. Hardly objectionable in a biography. And you object to an extra letter in the name or are you trying to point out... what, exactly? Source 5 backs up notability with significant coverage... Source 7 confirms his work on another show. There be the "multiple notable productions" that disproves your deletion nomination statement.
    "I couldn't find any information about source 8, 9. From what I've concluded: Volume 191 of Variety magazine was published on July 1, 1953, NOT July 8, 1953.[4] Whose page 24 neither has an article from someone named Herm, nor mentions Tony Martin Show, and thus the subject of the article."
    I don't know what you mean w/ "couldn't find any information about source 8, 9". If you mean you couldn't locate it, I don't know what to say... Your fragmented sentence has no subject, so I can't be sure which date you mean when you say that page 24 does not have that information. I think you may not have the best understanding of the norms of periodical publication or metadata. A volume is a collection of issues; I don't know how Variety divvies up their year now or did then. An issue is what is published on a particular date; individual issues make up a volume. I copy the citations as they are generated w/in Proquest w/ some cleanup; I will check the citations of 8 & 9 (downloaded; I don't have constant access to the database) later and correct an error of date if one exists, but it is possible that you're looking at the wrong date due to an error in the metadata. This is why it's important to look at a whole citation and, if information conflicts, resolve or simply note the conflict rather than make bad-faith accusations to editors.
    "Volume 158, May 1945 edition of Variety Magazine was published on May 2, 1945, and NOT May 16, 1945 as claimed in the references.[5] Whose 55th page doesn't have an article titled "Chatter: Hollywood"."
    When you say "whose", again, that's confusing--to which issue do you refer? The 2nd or the 16th? And what is your source for the May 2 publication date being correct for those numbers, anyway? Please link us. 3 links you provided aren't working for me:
    • https://mediahistoryproject.org/reader.php?id=variety191-1953-07
    • https://mediahistoryproject.org/reader.php?id=variety138-1940-05
    • https://archive.org/details/variety158-1945-05/page/n53/mode/2up
    "If I'm wrong, please feel free to link Source 8, 9. (proposed by EnormityOP)"
    Alas, I cannot link a paywalled source, but I will check them to see whether there may be a problem w/ the citation. Have you considered searching rather than browsing?
    "The article was previously moved to draft, per
    WP:DRAFTIFY
    , as the author claims that the subject is notable and the article will receive updates in the future. The article was then proposed for deletion, but the author failed to address the concerns mentioned above while removing prod."
    Ha. Be candid: you draftified stating that the article was not "complete enough," right? That was an invalid reason to draftify and you have not acknowledged that as of yet. And that's fine. I removed the prod because those at AfD have a good grasp of notability and sourcing and can enhance the article as we move along.
    talk) 14:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment Contrary to the nomination statement ("The sources however, establish that the subject only received 'brief bursts' of coverage over a few decades"), SUSTAINED does not apply, as SUSTAINED says: "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". The trades covered his career for quite some time and not for a single event; he was remembered decades after the end of the golden age of radio. Hardly a single event or a truly low-profile individual.
talk) 14:10, 5 April 2023 (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. Withdrawn by nominator.

(non-admin closure) ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Peeta Mellark

Peeta Mellark (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 does not meet the general notability guideine. Nearly all sources cited are the book itself, and those that aren't do not give non-trivial coverage of the article subject itself. 22090912l (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Meets
    WP:GNG
    , contrary to nom. Sources covering:
https://screenrant.com/hunger-games-peeta-mellark-character-strengths-vs-weaknesses/
https://screenrant.com/hunger-games-peeta-most-positive-negative-traits/
https://bookroo.com/quotes/peeta-mellark
https://collider.com/hunger-games-movies-peeta-mellark-why-its-bad/
See also
WP:NAF
.
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, two of those sources are from the same publication, meaning that they are counted as one for the purpose of establishing notability. Secondly, none of those sources currently exist in the article. Thirdly, whilst screenrant is listed as a reliable source for entertainment-related subjects, I can't find anything suggesting that the other two are remotely reliable, meaning that only one reliable publication has been found to report on this subject, which doesn't seem to meet notability in my view. 22090912l (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2023 (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. Aoidh (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solitaire Meissmer disappearance

AfDs for this article:
Solitaire Meissmer (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)

A personal event that got brief media attention but no

WP:NEVENT. (Also, the article is misnamed. It is not a disappearance, as the victim's body had been positively identified long before.) Paul_012 (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just in case anyone's still interested after 15 years, pinging those participants from the previous AfD who are still somewhat active (though I doubt most will see the ping before this expires): JzG, RichardWeiss, Eusebeus, Viridae and DeLarge. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge or nuke. This is not an independently notable subject. As you'd expect, given her age, 100% of the coverage is in the context of the tsunami, and it will almost certainly never be any different. Guy (help! - typo?) 14:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Hopefully the final relist. Nobody has argued for keeping the article, but there's no real agreement on whether it should be deleted or merged. If it's merged, what is the merge target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the person wasn't notable before the event, passing away doesn't make them notable. One of many victims, sadly. Oaktree b (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2023 (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. Aoidh (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Rice

Morgan Rice (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)

Morgan Rice is a prolific author of self published fiction. She is not, however, a published author. None of her work is independently published. Neither is she sufficiently notable in secondary sources for an author BLP. There are a few sources that say she sells a lot of books, but this doesn't make her notable for an article. The books themselves do not get independent coverage. The Wikipedia page has already been speedy deleted in the past as purely promotional, and the recreated page appears largely promotional too. There has been a notability banner on this page since it was re-created in 2016. Does not meet

WP:AUTHOR under any of the criteria. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  1. Profile on the Internet Speculative Fiction Database https://isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?215048
  2. https://www.publishersweekly.com/9781939416209 (review in reliable source)
  3. https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/morgan-rice/a-quest-of-heroes-book-1-in-the-sorcerers-ring/ (second review of same book in reliable source)
  4. https://richmond.com/lohmann-childhood-cancer-survivors-remission-a-reason-to-celebrate/article_7c83bf5a-e769-52a3-a03b-2bbea9667a95.html (passing mention)
  5. https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/books/a34992379/where-to-find-free-audiobooks-online/ (passing mention about her free audionbooks) CT55555(talk) 16:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1. This is user generated. Not a
      WP:RS
    2. This is based on Morgan Rice's own marketing copy, but with a few lines of actual review: there's an overwhelming amount of wish fulfillment packed into this initial installment, with Thor's successes and rewards piling up at an unbelievable rate in an impossibly short time. The predictable plot is packed full of fantasy clichés, the pacing is rushed, and character development is hasty. Nothing says SIGCOV has to all be good, but when it comes to a significant author, the lack of any positive review is clearly telling. This does not get close to SIGCOV.
    3. This one is indeed a short genuine review. Note it is an Indie reviewer though. They say "A fun but anemic, derivative fantasy." This is a very very long way from
      WP:SIGCOV
    4. As you say a passing mention. Someone met Morgan Rice.
    5. Passing mention. Link won't load for me. Free audiobooks mentions are purely promotional
    Thanks for looking, but this is a very long way from establishing significant independent coverage. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Publishers Weekly is a reliable source and clearly "The predictable plot is packed full of fantasy cliches, the pacing is rushed, and character development is hasty" is not her own copy.
    I disagree that the Kirkus Reviews is far from SIGCOV, it is the normal length of book review for a teen fantasy fiction book and satisfies SIGCOV in my opinion. CT55555(talk) 17:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, the original post was edited as I wrote my reply. The original thing I replied to said that #2 was the author's own marketing copy. CT55555(talk) 17:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So I assume we agree that nothing here meets
    WP:BASIC
    allows, for establishment of SIGCOV:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    A review in publishersweekly or kirkus review of a book, not the author, is trivial coverage - especially when it is a bad review. That is why this does not come close to SIGCOV. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Before I get into why this article should be keep, I want to point out that it is absolutely wrong to say Morgan Rice isn't a published author merely because her novels aren't "independently published." Self-published authors are equally worthy of being called published authors as those published by traditional publishing houses. Also, none of that has any bearing on whether Rice meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for authors. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), people are "presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The reviews in Publishers Weekly and Kirkus Reviews shared by CT55555 are valid proofs of notability. In fact, when we consider if authors are notable in AfD discussions we traditionally consider multiple reviews in places like PW and Kirkus to be the deciding factor in proving notability. Reviews such as this are absolutely not "trivial coverage." In addition I found multiple reviews of her work in Midwest Book Review ( here are two examples but there are more, do a word search on her name since the site lumps a number of reviews onto a single page) along with additional reviews and mentions of her work in the San Francisco Book Review, Fantastic Fiction, Dallas Examiner and School Library Journal (see article here where it mentions her as a bestselling author in the teen category). Finally, Rice's works have made a number of bestseller lists. Publishers Weekly notes that Rice's books have made the iBooks best-seller lists multiple times while five of her books have made the USA Today bestseller list (here's one example). In addition, Amazon listed three of her novels being among their 20 best-selling Kids & Teens books in 2013. And she even made the gold-standard New York Times Best Seller List, with her novel The Sorcerer's Ring being listed on the NYT's top ten Children's Series Bestseller List on Sunday, June 9, 2013. Unfortunately that NYT Bestseller List isn't online but can be found by doing a search in the Gale Literature Research Center. Finally, Book Authority lists her book Transmission at #52 on their list of the bestselling SF/F books of all time. Per Wikipedia:Notability (people), "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." I believe all of this reliable cited information combines to prove the subject's notability. --SouthernNights (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rationale to delete is flawed. Her being self-published should have no bearing on notability (Stephen King self publishes). Likewise, the suggestion that reviewing being negative should discount her notability is incorrect, although I would describe the reviews I read as mixed, rather than negative, each had positive and negative elements, but that's irrelevant, we're dealing with notability, not likability. Keep due to significant coverage in reliable sources above, boosted by being an author of a notable book (A Quest of Heroes). It is normal for an author's notability to be established by reviews of their book (like how it's notable for a football player to be noted for their footballing) so I also don't agree with the argument that suggests because the significant coverage is about her work, that makes it any less useful for notability. CT55555(talk) 14:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. She's certainly the author of a notable book (
    WP:NAUTHOR) is open to interpretation. That her books are self-published is, of course, irrelevant. And that professional reviews of her books are less than glowing is only relevant to demonstrate that the reviews are independent, as it's unlikely she paid for negative reviews. pburka (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Self published authors are capable of being notable and many traditionally published authors aren't. It depends on the sources, and these sources demonstrate notability imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2023 (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 06:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Faria Abdullah

Faria Abdullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

Draft:Faria Abdullah. Ab207 (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ab207 (talk) 06:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete our actress notability guidelines require multiple significant roles in notable productions, these guidelines are not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but retain the draft - does not meet our standards at this exact moment in time. Possible
    WP:TOOSOON Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirect to List of schools in Taguig can be created if necessary. Aoidh (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Western Bicutan National High School

Western Bicutan National High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seriously annoying but I can't find a speedy deletion criteria this fits under. Article was sent to draft, but user recreated on their user page and then moved the page into mainspace (leaving a redirect on their user page!!!) leaving the draft still in draftspace. The school is not notable by default and has no other claim to notability, there are barely any references (and they not RS) and the only solution to this mess is to delete it. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There are probably a thousand or two public (government-funded) high schools in the Philippines (usually on the municipal/city/district level, where their names come from), including this one, and it's unlikely that all of them would have a strong case for notability, especially along the lines of Philippine Science High School and Philippine High School for the Arts. ---- Tito Pao (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:ATD. No issue if it gets deleted first then redirected afterwards. --Lenticel (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of botanists. There is clear consensus that "List of plant scientists" should not be a separate article. There is much discussion, for reasons not immediately transparent to laypeople, about whether which list is a subset of which other list or not. But this can, I trust, all be resolved by editing by subject matter experts, who can make clear any distinctions which may be necessary in the merged list. To the extent it was discussed, there is also consensus to include List of plant pathologists in the merger. Sandstein 09:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of plant scientists

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)

I'm seeing multiple problems with this list. As stated, the ambit (not that it's clearly defined in the article) is too broad.

Botanist, and indeed about 3/4 of the entries in this list are identified as botanists in their respective lede. That makes it look like "list of botanists who have been left out of List of botanists", for which the solution is obvious. Of the remainder, some are in mycology, which is not a science of plants, and the remainder are plant pathologists. So it appears that the natural scope of this list, cleaned of what does not belong, would be "List of plant pathologists". Fair enough, but that feels like it may be getting a tad over-specific? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:42, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect to
WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 03:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Redirect per previous two participants + nom. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 15:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We've been discussing this over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Question_about_new_-_List_of_plant_scientists. I'm not sure if a redirect is really valid since not all plant scientists are botanists in the contemporary sense. Plant science (or a such named degree) is often used as a broader term that botanist, so you're going to get other disciplines like plant pathology, agronomy, sometimes entomology, etc. in a plant scientist list. That said, a list of plant scientists is a bit too broad and would be better split up into those more specific groups limited to if someone identifies as a botanist, agronomist, etc. Not really sure what the best action is yet, but I see some potential hiccups with a redirect at least. KoA (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the difference is there, the notability of this list would be hard to argue for. small jars tc 23:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, in terms of
WP:SALAT it would be too broad to really be a coherent or relevant list, Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. It basically suggests splitting into narrower categories instead of having a broad list like that. KoA (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi Elmidae! I think you have a point - the list of plant scientists is probably a bit irrelevant as the difference between botany and plant science is debatable. It could be argued that plant science is the study of plants with a focus on their molecular biology and physiology. Botany also studies plants, but more from the perspective of plant anatomy and taxonomy. I'm adding this link to the John Innes Centre website which touches on this, but I do agree the differences are debatable and not clearly defined. [15] Nolanna (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested above. While it may be true that not all plant scientists are botanists, and vice versa, it's still confusing to have two lists, as the merged list can explain this. As it stands the article is very unsatisfactory. (I realize that that can be fixed, if the article is kept). There are two people who are not notable (by the usual criteria of having articles about them). There is no information at all about most of the entries, the one exception being Richard L. Kiesling, where there is a far longer description than is needed, even if he is as "prominent" as claimed. If he is so prominent someone needs to write an article about him. In general the choice of people seems to be pretty arbitrary: where is Roland Douce, for example? Where is Buffon? Athel cb (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per my comments above after trying to juggle a few concepts. A redirect has technical issues in that not all plant scientists are botanists, and
    WP:SALAT generally discourages us from something this broad for a list. Instead, the more pragmatic approach is delete and put BLPs into respective lists such as botanist, agronomist, etc. they identify as instead of having a near indiscriminate list of plant scientists exist even as a redirect. Yes redirects are cheap, but they need to be accurate in their target. If the categories were a bit less nebulous with a better defined hierarchy, then a redirect of some sort would be more feasible. KoA (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Should we also unredirect
    plant scientist then? small jars tc 09:09, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'd take the
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS guidance and focus on this AfD first. Ideally things would be sorted out at the articles you link first, and then we figure out orders and hierarchy on list articles, but that's not how it happened. There does need to be some work done on the more nebulous title of plant science, but for now dealing with the list articles is lower hanging fruit. KoA (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
After discussion on redirects below, I do want to reiterate that redirecting this to botanist or plant pathologist is not a valid option here in terms of article naming policy. It would be like redirecting
WP:SALAT mentioned above, comments really are pointing to delete without redirects being viable. KoA (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: I'm not a fan of plant scientist redirecting to botanist, since to me botany has a strong taxonomic/systematic/ecological undertone. Ideally it would be Plant science -> Botany / Pathologists / Physiologists etc. However I have to acknowledge that if Botany <-> Plant Science is the way Wikipedia tends to write about plant scientists, then leaving this list active is unhelpful. There's very little point having a duplication of a list that only exists for a narrow definitional reason. Irrespective of
WP:OTHERSTUFF. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see more discussion of whether this article should be redirected/merged (not really mutually exclusive alternatives) or deleted, since some of the participants are arguing that plant scientists are not necessarily botanists and, so, a redirect would be inappropriate
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 09:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect to List of botanists, as this is de facto a synonym, resulting in substantial overlap. Obviously the mycologists need to go elsewhere, and they aren't plant scientists anyway. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not a fan of these kinds of lists anyway, but this one appears to be almost entirely populated with white, mostly American, men. Possibly Plant Scientist is a better term than Botanist for the reasons people have put forward above, but until there is a good amount of recognition of the scientists who are not white American men, this kind of list just perpetuates bias. Who decides who deserves to be on this list? JMWt (talk) 12:13, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    this one appears to be almost entirely populated with white, mostly American, men – list of botanists is no different in this respect. small jars tc 13:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's not good either. JMWt (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. But the search term "List of plant scientists" is a reasonable one if someone is looking for a list of botanists, so it should at least be a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems from the above that it would make more sense to merge the list of botanists to the list of plant scientists, given (from what I can understand of the above discussion) Botany is a subset of Plant Science. I've nothing against either (and indeed I've met a fair few beautiful people who are of that persuasion), but if they can't in short order ensure that the list contains people that are not just white, mostly American, men then neither list deserves to survive. JMWt (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, as the author of a BLP article about a self-described "Queer Atheist Feminist Autist", I do rather sympathise. On the other hand, editors can only list people who already have articles, and those are limited both by editorial effort and earlier constraints on who was able to become a scientist, however wrong those may look with 20/20 hindsight. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really see why this list can only list people who already have articles. I appreciate that listing absolutely every Plant Scientist who has ever existed would make a long page, but is there a policy to read about redlinks in list pages of people? JMWt (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lists should always be of bluelinks. I personally think those should also be individually cited, but I know that many editors are happy with flakily-cited lists. PS: It should be clear to everyone that any item with neither a bluelink nor a citation must be forbidden, or anyone could propose any sort of nonsense as a valid list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, whilst strictly speaking this is getting into the weeds in an AfD debate, it doesn't seem like those working on the page are trying very hard to be more inclusive even of plant scientists with WP pages. For example Alison Gail Smith isn't listed. Just one example of a person who doesn't meet the bias of the page as it stands. JMWt (talk) 14:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, but AfD is not the forum for improvement, that's normal editing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Botanists are a subset of plant scientists, most of whom would not regard themselves as botanists, so don't redirect. The term botanist conveys a very restricted image nowadays, and rather old-fashioned; note that the department of plant sciences in Cambridge university, for example, was once called the Botany School, but changed its name for this very reason. The lists of botanists not only fails to include the Cambridge Alison Smith as per JMWt, but also ignores her Norwich name-sake Alison Mary Smith, and AM Smith's colleague Cathie Martin and for that matter their joint colleague Caroline Dean whose article does call her a botanist, and in fact fails to contain any female plant scientist that I've ever met. If you want lists of scientists, then keep and maintain. If you don't want lists of scientists, delete. It's a global question of whether all such lists are useful and sensible, or whether they're better handled by categories. Elemimele (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you agree with me that all of these lists should be deleted - and if there really needs to be a way to navigate all possible permutations of Plant Scientist, the way to do that would be to have a category which included all the other existing categories - such as Category:South African women botanists and everything else - then we don't have the (immediate) problem of bias nor of whether any specific person is a Botanist/Plant Scientist/Cladistician/Whatever? From my POV this kind of list of people serves no purpose and creates an unnecessary headache.
    JMWt (talk) 18:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the issue of having lists like these at all, it strikes me as a bit
    WP:SOFIXIT on the gender bias in the list but I do agree that if WP does not have a consensus on what appellation it wants to give scientists that work on plants in the broadest possible sense, it definitely should not have lists that label them. FWIW I doubt any of the people Elemimele/JMwt named would call themselves "botanists", and I think that probably holds for the majority of people who work on plants, excepting a very narrow branch as I mentioned previously. EDIT: SOFIXIT was clearly not what I meant to cite, but more generally issues with the current content of the list is generally fixable without deleting the whole list, but the rest of my comment still stands. NeverRainsButPours (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge, with
    WP:ATD. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 00:32, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This would still cause issues for redirects because not all plant scientists are botanists or plant pathologists. KoA (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet
plant scientist redirects to botany, and the article states that botany is also called plant science. I don't see any problem with a redirect to List of botanists, but Category:Lists of biologists could be an alternative. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That would be a
WP:TITLE policy, especially Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.. Lumping botany as equivalent to plant science can't get around the problem that part of policy has us trying to avoid. KoA (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is about notability, not redirect titles. The point is that treating plant science as a synonym of botany is consistent with how we already use those words on other articles. Whether this is the most common usage is another problem. small jars tc 15:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is part of arguments to avoid at AfD, which is where we are and are discussing. The spirit of that is that we don't perpetuate errors or problems because they exist elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Other parts of the guidance even call out when redirects are misleading.
Either way, the redirect to botany just isn't a valid option here for a close unless we want to violate policy. Editors should already be aware of the issues that causes based on previous discussion about variable usage (which should be a red flag), and no amount of
WP:!VOTEs avoiding that can circumvent the problems it causes. The other article content can be fixed/updated when others get to them, but we are here now discussing this particular list. KoA (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It is only your opinion that the two terms are not virtually synonymous. Do you have a reliable source that defines the two terms separately? I would argue that ‘plant science’ is in fact a
neologism, created to avoid the negative connotations of the word ‘botany’. Hence why we do not have a separate article on it. There is an article on this in the peer-reviewed journal Trends in Plant Science.[1] SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I completely agree that it is a neologism to avoid the negative connotations of the word "botany" - a neologism created because the connotations of botany are, as that paper suggests, morphological and taxonomic (and that these modes of science are seen as outdated). Indeed, the paper you cite contrasts "botany" and "molecular biology" and seems to switch between identifying botany as two things:
1) A thing that encompasses both plant taxonomy/natural history and plant molecular biology
2) The science of plant taxonomy/natural history more generally.
or some mixture of the two.
Indeed, here's a paper (open access!) that does the same thing, doing this switch between "botany" and "plant identification/natural history" almost seamlessly. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.9019 NeverRainsButPours (talk) 23:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Crisci, J.V.; Katinas, L.; Apodaca, M.J.; Hoch, P.C. (2020). "The end of botany" (PDF). Trends in Plant Science. 25 (12): 1173–1176.
And that's where the rub is. Sometimes botany is used to talk about all of plant biology/plant science, but you get plenty of cases like above where it is used in the more narrow sense of focusing more on natural history and variable mixtures. There was some earlier discussion mentioned from other scientists too.[16] It's just a term that runs into
WP:PRECISE
issues. If anything, the source Sailing gave is a good example of how the term plant science has been used over botany in the current day This declaration, written by a committee of 14 internationally renowned botanists, establishes seven strategic action priorities. Despite being the proclamation of the largest botanical congress, the word ‘botany’ cannot be found anywhere in the text of the declaration, having been replaced by ‘plant sciences’, presumably in an effort to avoid any negative connotations of the word ‘botany’.
As a side note, it definitely is an issue we don't have enough people going specifically into botany focusing on taxonomy and fundamentals like that. That said, plant science/biology definitely isn't a neologism. It is not an isolated term nor anything particularly new given how widespread it's use is among scientists. We do have to be wary of
WP:OR violations that somehow plant science is a new term made up just recently to avoid using the term botany. They are slightly different terms with botany being a bit more ambiguous and that author commenting on one application of the term (or lack of). That problem with the term botany is going to remain in the real world regardless of editor opinion here, and that's what we're supposed to reflect. I have my thoughts on the AfD at hand with respect the validity of listing of broad plant scientists, but we also can't horse things into botany and act like it's clear cut there either. KoA (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That quote just goes to show that whether something is described as botany or plant science says more about the people describing it than the thing being described. small jars tc 09:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect as virtual synonyms; the distinction is not great enough to warrant separate lists. Pagliaccious (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would make the redirect situation even worse as this ignores the comments about plant science and botany not being virtual synonyms. It would be an inaccurate redirect and violate our title naming policy to do use inaccurate redirects. KoA (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They don't have to be exact synonyms. It'd be fine if there was a subset marker or table column or whatever (A is a plant pathologist, B is a plant ecologist, C is a botanist and plant ecologist, etc). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not any kind of scientist that works with plants, however it seems like a kind of
WP:BLUD
to dismiss other people's concerns in this way. I accept that it is unintentional, but others here have made a reasoned argument about the undesirability of putting plant scientists into boxes (as it were) and yet here in your latest comment you are reiterating that it would be fine to redirect into a table column.
It strikes me that the fairest thing to do here is nothing until these issues are hammered out by a consensus of informed editors. It certainly seems undesirable to continue enabling bias on the basis that a small number of editors apparently think it is too difficult to accept the self-designation of particular scientists. Who decides which column individuals would go into in your suggestion? The only agreement we appear to have here is that all the scientists who study plants are plant scientists, so it seems strange to continue insisting on a synonym those same scientists wouldn't call themselves. JMWt (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not, everyone is free to think and argue as they like; and I'm not the nominator here, nor a person who has posted here 7 times. I've just pointed out a gap in an argument. As to your question, if a table were used, we would use the sources in each scientist's Wikipedia article to place a tick in each column ("plant pathologist", etc) that matched their CV. This exactly does not "put people into boxes" as effectively each row of the table would be tailor-made for that scientist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
maybe I misunderstood. Are you arguing to !keep this page and separate it into columns or to redirect to a List of Botanists which is then separated into columns? JMWt (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense in a list of plant scientists article, though it gets back to the
WP:SALAT issue of being too broad of a list needing that demarcation. KoA (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2023 (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 Paris Is Burning (film). Any relevant, sourced content can be merged from the history if desired. Sandstein 09:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Pendavis

Freddie Pendavis (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)

"Fashion designer, television consultant and ballroom legend", only claim of notability was to be interviewed in a 1990 documentary. No RS/SIGCOV presented, coverage is all of Paris is Burning (and a good old fashioned search reveals no SIGCOV out there, either). Fails WP:GNG. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Pendavis is one of the last living members of a fairly recent and major historical and artistic movement. He’s one of the last to survive because everyone around him died of AIDS, murder, and health conditions caused by the poverty queer people of color were and often are subjected to. He was hired as a consultant on Pose because he is one of the only people left from that era to advise on what a period piece like that show should be like, basically being a human key to those times for the rest of us because that community had to be so underground for its people’s safety, and also because it was so unappreciated at the time that there isn’t tons of historical documentation. Again, not to mention, most people died of AIDS in their twenties and thirties. Finally, Pendavis still contributes to the overall culture. He’s the head of the legendary house of Pendavis, Lena Waithe wore his face on her outfit to the Met Ball, and he continues to speak for his deceased community and family members to share their historical experience since they can’t, despite how painful that is for him. Elttaruuu (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys delete the page, that’s your prerogative but it will go back up again next time he does something iconic and especially when he dies and it gets publicized on every major news source. Feels like it’d be wiser to keep an organized page of what sources we have now to add on to as these events occur rather than deleting under the guise of notability only to have to start from scratch. Elttaruuu (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Elttaruuu: How important he is is just not how Wikipedia decides whether to have a page. Especially for the protection of a living person, we have to decide based on whether enough fact-checked sources exist to cover them fairly. If you feel he deserves to be covered more than he has been, the solution is to pitch those stories to reliable media outlets. Wikipedia isn’t the place to do so. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2023 (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. Can be undeleted for crosswikification if desired. Aoidh (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC) The result was transwikify, see Special:Permalink/1150266394#Closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian proverbs for clarification. - Aoidh (talk) 05:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian proverbs

Serbian proverbs (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)

WP:NOTQUOTE #2; the article presently does what Wikiquote is there for: q:Serbian proverbs. –Vipz (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. –Vipz (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page is quite old, being only a month older than Wikiquote itself. I would support a cross-wiki merge to Wikiquote; the cited content on EnWiki seems to work fine there, and it would be wise to keep the attribution history for reasons of copyright. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Red-tailed hawk: what kind of a cross-wiki merge are you supporting? To soft-redirect the article to Wikiquote's article + add a tag on its talk page telling it was copied from Wikipedia? –Vipz (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I have in mind, yes. This would preserve the public page histories (i.e. the attribution history) for the authors of the Wikipedia article, while also properly placing the quote content on Wikiquote rather than Wikipedia. It's an application of
    WP:COPYWITHIN to moving content across wikis. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @Red-tailed hawk: yeah, just wanted to make sure we're thinking of the same thing. Not some sort of page-moving across different MediaWiki projects (which I wish was possible, though :P). –Vipz (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a way to move pages across wikis (i.e. transwiki), but seeing as the target of the would-be-move already exists on Wikiquote, I don't see a good reason to actually transwiki this. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe it could be transwikied to a page like q:Proverbs from Serbia, which then redirects to q:Serbian proverbs, much like Template:Infobox McDonald's was renamed to McDonald's company upon merging its contents into McDonald's. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 08:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the above decision. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as out of project scope, with the proviso that it can be undeleted for the benefit of anyone who wants to undertake the complicated crosswiki merger above. Sandstein 09:24, 13 April 2023 (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! 06:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Pre-University College, Kanakapura

Rural Pre-University College, Kanakapura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:NSCHOOL. A previous PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unreferenced stub for almost 8 years. Fails
    WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2023 (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. Sandstein 09:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Qavi

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 subject is a cleric who is known for having affairs -- mostly one-sided -- with female models and affiliation with a political party. Except for one single source The News, all other available sources are just tabloid-like stories and gossipy news pieces without any in-depth coverage of their life as a cleric or politician. Fails

WP:NPOL. Insight 3 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Pakistan. Insight 3 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's a part of me that could see a rationale for most of the information in this article being incorporated into other ones, but Qavi is notable enough on his own for this article to hold. I did some searches here, but my sources are going to be inherently biased towards US-coverage unfortunately -- I do think it's worth noting that the articles, although short, are about Abdul and the fallout of his decisions, and that he meets
    WP:NPOL's secondary criterion of receiving significant coverage. Some sources to add/that I found quickly include an AP story that I found in both The Boston Globe and some other papers from 2006 which talks about his photos with Qandeel Baloch that led to her 'honor killing' (sad story). [17], and an article in Dawn is about his family stripping the title of Mufti from him, and he's clearly the center of it. [18]. Another article from Dawn talks about his suspension from his committees and the political fallout from his decision. [19]. Nomader (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The source [20] is not primarily about the subject. [21] and [22] are just dramatic routine news coverage. Yes, they are the center of all the tabloid news, but this is not the kind of significant coverage required for a biography. Insight 3 (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, agree with the first source note (the Newspapers.com one) -- wanted to show that a search of US news sources didn't come up with much. But on the whole, there is a large range of coverage from across a large number of articles (both the Dawn articles I pulled here and in the article itself) along with the profile that you cited in your nomination that makes me inclined to !vote "keep". I think that although some of these articles are "tabloidy", they document a number of separate incidents and events (like him losing his place on a committee, him losing his party membership, him losing his title) that are different from what
    WP:NOTGOSSIP refers to, which are articles that focus on celebrity relationship scandals and gossip that's generally rumor-filled or unconfirmed. Nomader (talk) 14:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep very borderline, but Pakistan coverage (Dawn, Pakistan Today, The News) is sufficient to get this wildcard cleric - reluctantly - past WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage in Pakistan Today and Dawn is not IN-DEPTH and THE NEWS alone is not sufficient as
    WP:N requires multiple sources. Insight 3 (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2023 (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sohar University

Sohar University (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)

Almost entirely unreferenced promo piece on a non-notable private university. Search only finds social media profiles, directory listings, routine business reporting, and other non-sigcov content. Fails

WP:ORGCRIT by a country mile. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment Searching for accreditation, I found a certificate from an organization called IEDACC International (which itself doesn't have much of a footprint, and their website seems not quite right): https://www.iedacc.org/institutes/soahr-university/
The comp sci courses are also accredited by the Australian Computer Society: https://www.acs.org.au/cpd-education/accredited-courses.html
RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's not the greatest article in the world, but then Sohar is (despite its fabulous history) a relatively far-flung place. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES - "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online." As mentioned above, degree awarding means generally kept. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2023 (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. It is pretty clear, as pointed out by a couple of commenters that weren't socks, that advertorial content cannot be used as a method of passing GNG. Note: I closed this a day early, because the relist note had been deleted accidentally (see history). However, it has been open for 13 days, and the result isn't going to change. Black Kite (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskar Sharma (Physician)

Bhaskar Sharma (Physician) (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)

Contested draftification. Zero in-depth coverage about this individual so doesn't meet

WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 09:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete - Clearly lacks notability, article is poorly written only mentioning their occupation and nothing about their life, etc. ImperialMajority (talk) 14:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing my article and providing your feedback. I understand your concerns about the notability of the individual I wrote about. However, I would like to contest the draftification of the article on the following grounds:
  1. Unique contributions: While there may not be in-depth coverage of the individual, they have made unique and significant contributions in their field. For example, Recently Dr Bhaskar Sharma Appointed All India Secretary Medical Wing Of People's Forum Of India and also Dr. Bhaskar Sharma conferred with Medal of Excellence Award 2022 by the International Police Forum. These contributions demonstrate the individual's importance and should be taken into consideration.
  2. Citation count: While the individual may not have any qualifying positions, the high citation count of 18 demonstrates the interest and impact of their work. This is particularly significant given the limited coverage of the individual in the media. The citations provide evidence of the individual's notability and should be taken into account.
  3. Potential for expansion: The article was short, but there is potential for it to be expanded with additional information and sources. And now it is improved as per wiki norms so with these additions, the article would provide a valuable resource for readers.

I respectfully request that the article be reconsidered for inclusion on Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and consideration. Rx (talk) 07:31, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Passes
    WP:GNG. He has been subject of multiple news articles which were published in different date, months and year. Like two times in Dainik Bhaskar[1][2] and one time in ABP News.[3]

There is significant coverage about him in many reliable sources like in

President of United States.[7]​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 15:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ "इटवा में मनाया गया विश्व होम्योपैथी दिवस: याद किए गए होम्योपैथी के आविष्कारक डॉक्टर हैनीमैन, डॉ. भास्कर शर्मा बोले- महिलाओं, बुजुर्गों और बच्चों के लिए होम्योपैथी रामबाण". Dainik Bhaskar (in Hindi). 2022-04-10. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  2. ^ "सिद्धार्थनगर के वरिष्ठ होम्योपैथिक चिकित्सक को मिली उपलब्धि: डाॅ. भास्कर शर्मा बने कुटाई मूलवर्मन किंगडम के एंबेसडर". Dainik Bhaskar (in Hindi). 2022-12-08. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  3. ^ Focus, ABP Live (2023-02-25). "Dr Bhaskar Sharma Appointed All India Secretary Medical Wing Of People's Forum Of India". english. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  4. ^ "Meet world-renowned homeopathic physician of India: Dr. Bhasker Sharma". Mid-day. 2022-06-23. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  5. ^ "Dr. Bhasker Sharma, a Stalwart Homeopathy Physician of India". ANI News. 2021-01-12. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  6. ^ "WAC People Council awards Uttar Pradesh's renowned homeopathic doctor with International Prestigious Award 2021". ThePrint. 2021-09-25. Retrieved 2023-03-28.
  7. ^ "Donald Trump felicitates Indian homoeopathic doctor". mint. 2020-12-22. Retrieved 2023-03-28.

Comment - Hi, @LordVoldemort728: Public relations firms were hired to write the news stories referenced, please check (PR). Visit any of these articles, and you'll see that they all contain backlinks to Bhaskar Sharma's website and are obviously written as brand postings. Nothing but good things about him are said in every article. Brand post tags are present in every article. Due to the fact that ANI is a PR company, it contributes content to all other news websites.  𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07   17:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What are your comments about he was felicitated by
President of United States? ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 13:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

References

  1. ^ "Bhasker Sharma". scholar.google.com. Retrieved 2023-04-05.
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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Kirk (presenter)

AfDs for this article:
Roger Kirk (presenter) (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)

Biographical article about a radio presenter. Previously nominated (by me) and closed as no consensus. I am bringing this back to AfD some months later as I still believe that even with the links added during the previous discussion, there is no assertion of notability under

WP:OR
.

As part of

WP:BEFORE
I have performed a source analysis on all the sources in this article, including those added during the previous AfD discussion:


Source assessment table: prepared by User:Flip Format
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/search/0/20?filt=bbc_radio_one&q=Roger+Kirk#top No Published by the subject's employer at the time, the BBC Yes BBC Genome is generally considered reliable for BBC schedule information No Database entry ✘ No
https://web.archive.org/web/20080608013623/http://www.mediauk.com/the_knowledge/i.muk/Roger_Kirk Yes Does not appear to have been written by the subject No This is a wiki, ie.
WP:UGC
 Yes Page is specifically about the subject ✘ No
https://www.mixcloud.com/radionut2013/roger-kirk-opens-classicgold/ ? Dead link, 404 No Anyone can upload to MixCloud, ie.
WP:UGC
 ? Dead link ✘ No
https://www.mixcloud.com/JONOAUDIO/17-july-1990-lauch-of-magic-828/ No Audio recording of the subject presenting a radio show, no critical commentary or analysis given No Anyone can upload to MixCloud, ie.
WP:UGC
 Yes Page is specifically about the subject ✘ No
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=5896281 ? Dead link No Forum thread,
WP:UGC
 ? Dead link ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Flip Format (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've also done a search in the archives of Broadcast (magazine) for mentions of this individual. He is mentioned, but only in passing in the context of various stations:

  • Broadcast, 8 September 1975, article about Pennine Radio's launch: "...and former Capital engineer Roger Kirk on in the afternoons."
  • Broadcast, 14 February 1977, article about changes to Pennine Radio's schedule: "...and extending the pop music shows of Roger Kirk and Julius K Scragg from three to four hours each."
  • Broadcast, 1 June 1990, general article about Trans World Communications splitting its FM and AM stations: "Aire [...] Roger Kirk has joined from neighbouring Classic Gold to present the morning breakfast show."

I don't think any of these constitute significant coverage, they are all just passing mentions in the context of wider articles about changes to radio stations, but wanted to make sure the research was complete before nominating. Flip Format (talk) 15:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this article and the three references you have found, so what if they are passing mentions? Broadcast magazine is a trusted source so rather than doubling down on your desire to get this article deleted, why not add the references to the article as doing so would improve the article. Rillington (talk) 07:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not relevant to this AfD and appears to be a personal comment about me as a user. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on my talk page - this space is for the AfD discussion on Roger Kirk (presenter). Flip Format (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The second part of my comment is very relevant to the discussion and the reason I posted the first part here was because you are making a second attempt to get this article deleted. However, you are right that the overall theme of that comment might be better on your talkpage because I do have an issue with people who want to see lots of articles deleted and I feel that I am within my rights to politely challenge this.Rillington (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per analysis presented above and a lack of coverage out there in the big bad world. We simply aren't getting beyond WP:GNG here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I checked Keith Skues' Pop Went The Pirates 2nd ed. - the only mention of him there is his name in the list of RNLI DJs. Adam Sampson (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

Arrest of Ulysses S. Grant. Aoidh (talk) 04:34, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

William H. West (policeman)

William H. West (policeman) (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)

arrest of Ulysses S. Grant, and he is appropriately covered there. What little biographical content in the article does not relate to that arrest is neither sourced nor in any way remarkable. Sandstein 07:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 12:04, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Mutoni Saranda

Mutoni Saranda (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)

Absolutely no shred of notability to this puffy stub, unearthed while reviewing redirects. No RS, no SIGCOV, fails WP:GNG. Creator's talk page shows an ongoing track record of creating advertising/unsuitable articles and this is pretty typical of that genre... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:48, 5 April 2023 (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. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Clelland Britton

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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet

WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Joyous! Noise! 02:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I was able to find [23][24][25][26][27]. The first three are definitely borderline passing mentions, but the final two are SIRS. I include the first three because they do have useful information for expanding the article. HouseBlastertalk 17:44, 9 April 2023 (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. – Joe (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Levin (diplomat)

AfDs for this article:
Matthew Levin (diplomat) (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)

Since the last AfD, community consensus is clear that ambassadors are not inherently notable. Could not find significant coverage to meet

WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I found a Radio Canada International story in Spanish and added it as a reference, as well as a few others. Because he served in Spanish-speaking countries, I did a google search for "Matthew Levin" embajador and found the references that way. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There was some erosion in the keep position over time as the reliability of the TechCrunch source was contested effectively. There was concern as to the independence of the other sources. Overall, there was a rough consensus to delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Evage

AfDs for this article:
Evage (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)

Nominated for deletion, soft deleted for lack of participation, refunded. And yet this Indian electric vehicle company is not notable, fails WP:GNG; WP:CORP sourcing is in the main press releases about battery supply and sales wins, routine funding - WP:SERIESA. Beyond the patchy sourcing here, WP:BEFORE reveals no reason for notability out there. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 19:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: meets
    WP:ORG with significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There are numerous additional mentions at google news many of which appear independent which could add further notability to the page, so the page could be improved, but doesn't warrant being deleted. Per subsequent discussion, references to not appear to have enough independent content to qualify. Locu (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Hi
      HighKing++ 14:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      The TechCrunch article appears independent and provides significant coverage of the subject. I think the bulk of the article qualifies so I won't paste the whole thing here. The author of that article covers transportation/ev/battery articles for TC and appears independent of the subject. A second (weaker) source would be thebetterindia.com which has a fair amount of information and quotes from the company, it looks independent. While one, or maybe both, of these articles might have received some facts or inspiration from a press release, they do have their own independent analysis and the bulk of the article is not content from a press release or the company. Most of the other sources are redundant press releases and could be cleaned out to improve the article. Locu (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi
    HighKing++ 14:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @
    HighKing Your experience and comments have highlighted some things I missed, thank you for pointing them out. The TechCrunch article may have an independent author, but the independence of the content is indeed questionable - especially given the date correlation that you pointed out. The independent writer did contribute a bit to the article, but not a lot. Further, the google news I pointed out earlier also upon deeper inspection mostly seems to be connected to the same press release. I'll del my earlier recommendation. Locu (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 5 April 2023 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aleutia

Aleutia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:SIRS. References are routine annoucement and press-releases, PR from companies. scope_creepTalk 17:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 19:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio giuliano 19:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. The rationale for the nomination is lack of notability.
    WP:N
    says that a topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) like WP:NCORP.
To pass GNG the topic requires significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources, independent of the subject. The topic is the company and its products and projects.
WP:NCORP
.
The one area of NCORP that the topic may fail is
WP:ORGSIG. I haven't come across any evaluation of the scope and impact of for example, the African 'School in a box' project.[34] and for this reason I'm opting for "weak keep" rather than "keep". Rupples (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I think this probably fails
WP:SIRS as not being independent. They are such a common thing, these pc reviews. I don't think it is credible to say, "the company products have five reviews, so it must be a notable company". Every product gets some kind of review now and don't think affirms anything. These pc companies are established willy-nilly on an on-going basis all the time you see new products. Its not notable. scope_creepTalk 15:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Share your concern. The only thing I'd add is that these tech publications likely receive many more products submitted for review than get into print. I guess editorial oversight weed out those not likely to generate much readership interest or have anything to distinguish themselves technology-wise. Rupples (talk) 22:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:40, 5 April 2023 (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-liked TikTok videos

List of most-liked TikTok videos (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)

I'm not sure if this satisfies

primary-sourced, which does not affirm notability. Additionally, none of the 23 sources in the article are about the concept of a list of the most liked TikTok videos, and a Google search
finds only three sources that talk specifically about the most liked TikTok videos:

[35]

[36]

[37]

the first two of which appear to be marketing agencies. These three sources don't have much analysis on the rankings. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-subscribed YouTube Music artists. 123957a (talk) 03:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update I have also nominated List of most-followed Twitch channels for deletion: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-followed Twitch channels. 123957a (talk) 12:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not to rely on the fact that other pages of the same nature exist, but nearly all of the "most-liked" lists have deletion discussions (
WP:CALC more than anything, and I think editors can exercise common sense and recognize that like counts from an older article are probably inaccurate if the bottom of the table lists a date from after its publication. benǝʇᴉɯ 04:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Per
    WP:SYNTHNOT: If you consider all instances of reading a table to be SYNTH because reading a table requires "synthesizing" the entry in the table with the label of what the table is, your understanding of SYNTH is wrong. benǝʇᴉɯ 09:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Celeste Buckingham. Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste Buckingham filmography

Celeste Buckingham filmography (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)

Completely unnecessary for someone who has only appeared on reality TV, morning shows, specials, and a documentary.

WP:FANCRUFT { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete or Merge with Celeste Buckingham. I’m not seeing any significant appearances beyond morning shows and specials, but I’m not familiar with local media, if anything is worthy of note, would merge with her main article. Otherwise, I’m not seeing sufficient evidence this needs to be an article, and would support deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Celeste Buckingham. Not seeing anything here that would warrant a standalone article.-
    KH-1 (talk) 06:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to

New Zealand national football team records and statistics. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

New Zealand national football B team results

New Zealand national football B team results (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)

Results for an unofficial team that doesn't have its own article either. Really the team doesn't require a page and isn't really notable, doesn't even exist in any form or have played for a number of years now — NZFC(talk)(cont) 07:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there isn't an exclusive page for New Zealand B doesn't give reason to delete the page. Since it says that the B team matches are not official, why don't you remove the B team pages for example South Korea or Australia?
Since it was not possible to develop an exclusive page for New Zealand B due to the few sources found and due to the lack of historical information, I went to develop a page only with the results because it was something more important than the team page itself. YangerAAS (talk) 13:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Draftify - normally I'd say merge to the B team article, but there is none. If an article for the B team can be developed, this information can then be added, instead of it going to waste and having to be restarted. RedPatch (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC) I now see that the B team had an article go through AfD and this information was on that page, but since the outcome was re-direct, this information exists in the page history. So withdrawing my comment as the purpose was to preserve the information in case it could be used, but it is already preserved. RedPatch (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Since there are no suitable pages to merge, it's not worth deleting everything. I'd suggest sending it to draft, but I'm not sure it'll do any good. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge to a relevant section at
    New Zealand national football team results. GiantSnowman 19:11, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - Per Suitskvarts. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per GiantSnowman to either one of those articles that they linked above. Content seems decent enough for merging. CycloneYoris talk! 22:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It looks like a decision to Merge. Please be specific which page (and section) you would like it to be merged to, some editors call it a "Supervote" when the closer makes this decision on their own.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per GiantSnowman to consensus target.  // Timothy :: talk  02:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to a new section at the bottom of
    New Zealand national football team results makes sense either since that page is acting as a disambiguation page at the moment. Jay eyem (talk) 03:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I'd agree with a merge to
New Zealand national football team results as that is a disambiguation page.— NZFC(talk)(cont) 19:29, 11 April 2023 (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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

João de Barros, Recife

João de Barros, Recife (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)

Source does not mention such a place, and a Google search suggests that it's a road. -- Mebigrouxboy (talk) 03:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything besides the road either. The sourced official document does not mention João de Barros either.EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 15:11, 5 April 2023 (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Masters Tour

Metal Masters Tour (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)

BLAR'd to Judas Priest in December 2022 due to notability concerns. The redirect was contested at this RfD on February 10 because there were four notable bands featured in this tour (Judas Priest, Motörhead, Heaven & Hell, and Testament), so this could not be redirected anywhere and participants agreed to take the page to AfD. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Pinging the following participants: HorrorLover555, A7V2, QuietHere, and Red-tailed hawk, as well as relisters CycloneYoris and Jay. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found this source covering setlists and these three show reviews in a brief search. There's also quite a few articles covering the announcement ([38][39][40][41][42][43][44]). This is looking really keepable to me so far. QuietHere (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, there's this piece from Billboard, this interview in Guitar World, a mention in Rob Halford's book, and this mention in a book on Sabbath. Dunno how much all of that contributes to notability since the mentions are fairly passing, but maybe there are some juicy details worth adding in there that I skimmed past. And there's also a cover story in Revolver which I can't find an archived copy of just yet; that's gotta be worth something. I'd be willing to vote keep based on everything I've dug up so far, especially given it wasn't entirely thorough and there could easily be even more. QuietHere (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is strongly leaning delete, however giving more time for sources to be found. If not...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:22, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Murder of XXXTentacion. Consensus was that a merge to the article documenting the murder is appropriate. No one asserted that the subject is notable apart from the murder, which gives the WP:PERP argument added strength. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Boatwright

Michael Boatwright (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)

Outside of the crime, zero notability. Was redirected to

WP:BIO1E would also apply. Onel5969 TT me 15:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions. Just noting that the "Support" vote came from a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:21, 5 April 2023 (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 there is no question that the subject is a director, the sense of the discussion here is that the subject has not garnered coverage in reliable sources that provide evidence of sufficient notability to warrant an article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolás Isasi

Nicolás Isasi (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)

Subject does not meet WP requirements. Article does not meet WP requirements. Sources are not reliable. Article should not have been approved to main space. Maineartists (talk) 01:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I don't agree at all with the removal of the article. There are many others that have less and more unreliable information out there. You can look for the quotes, there are references to books, newspapers, magazines, websites, and even information on various editions of the artist in other languages for a long time. Dtiw (talk) 01:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)— Dtiw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
comment@
WP:RESUME and self-promotional; not encyclopedic. Maineartists (talk) 01:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
KEEP I've been able to find several mentions and sources. I'll work on improving the article as soon as I can adding more sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artwwwriter (talk • contribs) 15:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Artwwwriter, the article creator, removed the AfD tag from the article [49]. I've warned them not to do that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Artwwriter and Dtiw are most likely the same editor. Regardless of double "keep"s, this should not sway the voting here. The article needs to be reviewed and voted on by experienced WP editors. Maineartists (talk) 23:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the same editor, but we edit in the same article. And when I took out the upper box it's because I thought this was in talk, it wasn't for any other reason. I insist that I will look for more sources if there is data that is not corroborated it will be eliminated, but I do not think it is to eliminate everything. Artwwwriter (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made paragraph correction, eliminating sentences without sources and citing the corresponding ones. The 4 books in which his work in recent years is documented with the respective publication codes, in some cases the pages where it is mentioned. Also, precise references from different official organizations, newspapers, magazines, foundations and online sites dedicated to art and culture that support the above data: Official Website of the Government of the City of Buenos Aires, National History Library from Buenos Aires, Cultura e spettacolo magazine and Teatro e Critica (Italy), newspaper as Quotidiano Piemontese, El Día, Ámbito Financiero, Clarín, Diario de Cultura, 0221, Revista Colofón, Mundo Clásico, Fundación Romeo, Festival Shakespeare en la Escuela. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artwwwriter (talk • contribs) 04:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You still have not addressed any of the aforementioned violations of WP policy stated on the Talk Page. The references you have added are exactly the same as the ones that are there now. Please see Talk Page again. Maineartists (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have now gone in and removed all unsourced and primary sourced content, resume and promotional style writing, links to non-notable content and persons, etc. Unfortunately, what is left are still sources directly linked to the subject. Because the BLP is only known in Argentina, there are no sources outside this area; which is not a negative, but to achieve notability at English WP, there should be at least some coverage of a BLP claiming to be a notable film and opera director, critic and professor. None of which are. The article still fails notability for subject category and I dare say even:
WP:GNG. Maineartists (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article demonstrates that he is a director, but it does not demonstrate that he is a notable one. Many of the sources are SR or puff pieces, and others merely confirm that he directed a production. The claim that he was a "semi-finalist" at a Russian young directors' competition is overblown: 13 competitors were accepted to the competition, and he was one of them. None of his films is notable, and he appears to have directed only a handful of operas, and they were not, apparently, presented at Argentina's major opera houses. The argument that other articles exist for people who are less notable is a poor argument.
    WP:TOOSOON. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete: The lack of sources aside, just reading the article shows it fails
    director, or a critic. -- Otr500 (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    KEEP Modify by adding reference citations to newspapers, magazines, and theatrical broadcasting sites. 2001:8A0:6A27:4000:8CDD:B5A5:830:4016 (talk) 04:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Note: similar to Artwwwriter and Dtiw (who only contributed to this article and has not contributed to the article or any discussion since pointing out similar edit history), the above editor 2001:8A0:6A27:4000:8CDD:B5A5:830:4016 has also only contributed to this article and introduced content and sources exactly the same to the previous editors: links by association, non-notable content, do not even mention subject, etc.[50] They are exactly the same type of source that the above 2 editors have contributed to this article. I have removed content. Once again, I must state that either this is the same editor, SP or a direct COI. I do not believe the vote to keep should be allowed since the entry on this page is similar to the original two editors. (whom I had to fix). Maineartists (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    KEEP Your position of erasing everything in each edition is very childish, saying that they are all the same person because one tries to contribute. I have a life, I don't spend erasing what others do. I aggregate data with sources that are cultural trusted entities. Obviously you lack knowledge or you can't read Spanish. Dtiw (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT
    WP:DISRUPTIVE. There is nothing childish about my reverts. I am translating everything you are adding and not one of the sources are admissible. You have only edited at WP on this article. You do not know what you are doing. Please stop. Maineartists (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per Ssilvers sentiments. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Best in TV: The Greatest TV Shows of Our Time

Best in TV: The Greatest TV Shows of Our Time (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 GNG. Show does not have SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and in-depth from IS RS.  // Timothy :: talk  02:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Safe Child Africa

Safe Child Africa (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 significant coverage to meet

WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 5 April 2023 (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. The clear sense of the discussion is that the article should not be deleted. There also is consensus for the position that the current title of the article does not accurately describe its contents. Beyond that, while there appears to be support that the article would be better as a list, there was not general agreement as to whether a move, rename, or other action was most appropriate. However, these discussions can continue on the talk page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roman–Gallic wars

Roman–Gallic wars (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)

WP:SIGCOV
have also been cited as relevant in the discussion; PRIMARY has been resolved thanks to the efforts of P Aculeius).
This article lumps together any battle or conflict or brawl "the Romans" and "the Gauls" (or "the Celts") are ever said to have had, framed under the largely self-invented name of Roman–Gallic wars. Because the term might seem plausible at first glance, I'd like to deconstruct why that isn't the case and we should delete this article. This term Roman–Gallic wars is not used in the primary sources (the only sources cited [when I filed this AfD]), and actually very rare in literature; when it does show up, it is used with inconsistent definitions. Note that when people write wars with a lowercase w, it is more likely to be an ad hoc grouping of battles/wars than a clearly defined set/series of wars, which usually goes with a capital W. Some examples:

  1. A synonym for the Gallic Wars of Julius Caesar (58–51 BCE), e.g Travis Gene Salley 2013, who uses the Gallic Wars, the Roman-Gallic Wars, the Roman-Gallic conflict and the Roman-Gallic battles interchangeably, treating them as synonyms.
  2. Jack E. Maxfield 2008 p. 3: In 400 B.C. the Gauls plundered Etruria in northern Italy, conquering Felsina, which subsequently became known as Bononia. Ten years later, under King Brennus, they sacked Rome itself and retreated only after the payment of 1,000 pounds of gold. Thus began the long Roman-Gallic wars which did not end until the time of Julius Caesar in the 1st century of the Christian era. So Maxfield frames the long Roman-Gallic wars as from 400 BCE until (implicitly) 51 BCE, much longer than Salley. However, this would still exclude the 40–37 BCE campaign of Agrippa against the Aquitani and the 28–27 BCE campaign of Corvinus in Gallia Aquitania, which the article includes in these Roman–Gallic wars by referencing Appian's Civil Wars, another primary source. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endre Ferenczy 1976 p. 78 Some vague interpretation of Polybius s:The_Histories_(Paton_translation)/Book_II#18 about a Roman-Gaulish conflict in the mid-4th century BCE before the Latin War broke out in 340 BCE has the author say: (Polybius') evidence is considered of decisive importance by modern historians because it confirms the information of Livy concerning the revival of the Roman-Latin alliance. The historian of Megalopolis (Polybius), while unfolding the events of the Roman-Gallic Wars, writes the following: II.18.5. "Meanwhile the Romans re-established their power and put their affairs in order with the Latins." This sentence of Polybius is undoubtedly kindred in sense to the information of Livy: It says that the good relations between Rome and Latium were restored in the thirty years' period after the Gallic catastrophe [I suppose Ferenczy means the c. 390–387 BCE Battle of the Allia, which is also called the Gallic catastrophe in literature] and the second invasion of the Gauls. Neither the context Ferenczy provides (on the development of the Roman–Latin relations between 358 and 340) nor of Polybius is very clear on when these Roman-Gallic Wars supposedly look place. But given the Latin War broke out in 340 BCE, and that Polybius makes statements including Thirty years after the occupation of Rome, the Celts again appeared before Alba with a large army and But when, twelve years later, the Celts again invaded in great strength, which suggests either 30, 12 or 30+12 years after the c. 390–387 BCE Battle of the Allia, I'd say somewhere around 350 BCE, in the middle of Ferenczy's 350–340 period. That's 300 years before Caesar entered Gaul. Also the fact that they apparently were 'unfolding' at the time suggests there were no previous battles (including Allia) to be lumped into this Roman-Gallic Wars concept. Given that Polybius died c. 118 BCE, he also had no way of knowing about Caesar's Gallic Wars in the 50s BCE, so when Ferenczy speaks of how Polybius is unfolding the events of the Roman-Gallic Wars, he probably would have excluded Caesar from those "Wars" as well. But as these are primary sources, it's just difficult to tell, and this article has been based on Polybius and Appian alone since it was created in 2012 by User:Samuelhaldane (who ceased editing in 2014, and edited very little else).
  • There are virtually no other papers on Google Scholar that mention the term Roman-Gallic wars. On Google Books it is also rare; apart from Ferenczy 1976, it is unheard of before 2000. Some 2000s books use it ambiguously, but usually as a synonym for Caesar's wars in Gaul of the 50s BCE.
    • One exception is Claudia Sagona 2005 p. 197, who makes a passing mention of the Roman-Gallic wars of the 3rd century, suggesting they were either limited to the 3rd century, or that it is an ad hoc grouping of all Roman-Gallic battles in that century, to the exclusion of later ones such as Caesar's in the 1st century BCE.
  • Only very recent publications (since 2018) use the term in as broad a sense as this Wikipedia article; it is also likely that in some cases, usage of this term was influenced by this very Wikipedia article, so these probably aren't representative of the wider literature.
    • Example: Heather Lyn 2019 p. 59 probably consulted this Wikipedia article before writing this sentence about "the series of Roman-Gallic Wars": In approximately 387/386 BCE, the young and vulnerable city-state of Rome was sacked by the Senones, one of many Gallic (the Celtic people who inhabited Gaul, the area of present-day France) tribes that would engage in war with the Romans during the series of Roman-Gallic Wars. (She treats "Celts" and "Gauls" as synonyms, although incorrectly implying that Transalpine Gaul, where the Senones fighting at Allia lived, is also part of "present-day France" rather than Italy). On p. 60 she implies this "series of Roman-Gallic Wars" even continued into the 1st century CE: At the dawn of the new millennium, the Roman Empire continued to expand its range north and west, conquering territories held by Celts and other barbaric tribes. This Wikipedia article, however, doesn't stretch into the 1st century CE.
    • Even so, Hupfauf 2020 p. 124 still treats the Roman-Gallic wars as a synonym for Caesar's Gallic Wars: In 58 the Helvetii began to move westwards; however, Julius Caesar pushed them back. In 52 BCE Vercingetorix, chief of the Averni, lead the Gallic peoples in the Roman-Gallic wars. In the battle of Alesia the Romans won victory over the Gallic tribes (...). Hupfauf thus clearly suggests the Roman-Gallic wars are limited to Caesar in the 50s BCE.
  • We're left with a choice of deleting this mess, or keeping some vaguely defined term in the title that is not found in the primary sources (the only sources cited [when I filed this AfD]), with a generalised list/article hybrid full of OR, PRIMARY and SYNTH, while the very few scholarly references there are cannot agree on its definition and scope. And without a proper definition and scope, no Wikipedia articles can be justified. The default course of action is to delete the article, when policies and guidelines are not only not adhered to, but also cannot be adhered to, e.g. to due to lack of RS, or a lack of agreement in the few RS that do exist on what the term even means. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: Alternatives: I suppose it's possible to rename it to
    Chronology of warfare between the Romans and Germanic tribes, which, however, still suffers from OR, PRIMARY and SYNTH, and might have to be AfD'd later as well (but that's another matter). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is clearly in need of work, but the basic premise—documenting a series of distinct conflicts from the early fourth century BC onward, with or without including the Gallic War, seems sound. The primary objections to this article appear to be that the article title "Roman–Gallic wars" is "original research" or "synthesis", but this is not the case. Even if it occurs rarely in scholarship, it is a valid title; if no single title is widely used, then any title that clearly describes the subject is appropriate, and "Roman–Gallic wars" would appear to do that. if there is a better title, whether or not it is found in a significant amount of scholarship, then the article can be moved to it—but that would not entail deletion of the article.
The second objection seems to be to the composition of the list; which wars or conflicts should be included. This is not an argument for deletion. As the function of the article is a list of such conflicts, the only essential basis for inclusion would seem to be that the antagonists were Rome and the Gauls. Presumably any war in which Roman writers identified their enemies as "Gauls" could be included, unless a line is drawn for inclusion at a specific point in time (also a valid choice for a list article). Requiring a scholarly source to contain a single, comprehensive list would be pedantic. Deleting the list because some conflicts could be argued would be absurd; whether to include them would be grounds for a talk page discussion.
The nominator calls the article a mess (it certainly looks messier after three templates were added at the top, along with a dozen "citation needed" tags and a persnickety "according to whom?" tag next to the word "major"). These are all things that can be fixed—some of them quite easily—and WP:BEFORE was evidently not followed; the nominator appears to have spent an incredible amount of time documenting whether "Roman–Gallic wars" was used in scholarship, but no time whatever determining whether the issues—primarily the lack of citations—could be addressed. This is simply not a good nomination. I think I will see about adding some citations to primary and secondary sources, so at least we can eliminate the messy state of the article from confusing the issue. P Aculeius (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. Exactly because it seems sound at first glance, I have endeavoured to show it is not, and in simultaneous violation of multiple core policies.
The definition and scope/composition are inextricably linked to each other in an article/list that seeks to identify a set of items (see also
WP:BEFORE
, which you accuse me of having ignored).
On that point, I have spent an incredible amount of time (...) determining whether the issues—primarily the lack of citations—could be addressed, namely, whether sufficient citations could be found to support the very concept of Roman–Gallic wars in the first place (per
WP:BEFORE D.). Answer: no. Conclusion: delete. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment: after spending several hours addressing the citation tags and revising the contents to be a little clearer, I utterly fail to understand the point of this nomination. The argument for deleting the article is that "only a few historians and publications use this title", while "no primary sources use this title" (ironic, since the nominator was complaining that the article only cited primary sources), thereby making the title of the article synthesis (!).
This argument is nonsensical. Many valid articles have titles that merely describe the contents. This is perfectly acceptable when there is no single title for the subject agreed upon by scholarship. But here we have a title used by various scholarly works—which the nominator rejects because none of the sources that use it were cited in the article! Even if that were a valid argument—and it is certainly not—it would be solved by simply citing any of those works, which the nominator identified and quoted from in this discussion! It is difficult to imagine a more blatant refusal to follow the guidance of WP:BEFORE before nominating the article for deletion.
A secondary argument seems to be that the sources the nominator quoted do not consist of identical lists of conflicts corresponding precisely with the list of conflicts in this article. The nominator is not arguing that these were not conflicts between Rome and the Gauls. Instead, the argument is that if the items making up the list come from different sources, then the list constitutes synthesis! This is a degree of formalism that ought to have been discarded some time in the last century. By this criterion, all Wikipedia articles should be deleted as synthesis and original research, because all of them consist of varying statements taken from different sources in order to produce a coherent discussion of a topic. The only articles that wouldn't fall afoul of this would be articles consisting entirely of information taken from a single source—which of course would be problematic for several other reasons.
The only thing necessary for inclusion on this list is that an item represent some conflict or milestone in the conflict between Rome and the Gauls. As long as reliable sources state that Rome fought against the Gauls on this or that occasion (or in one instance I added tonight, concluded a peace that didn't immediately follow a particular war or battle), that event can reasonably be included on the list, just as a list of cities in Outer Slobovia can include any city that a reliable source says is in Outer Slobovia. According to this nomination, however, you must cite the entire contents to a reliable source that provides a list of cities in Outer Slobovia, and you cannot include any cities that are not mentioned in that source, or another one saying that it is a list of cities in Outer Slobovia. A reliable source that merely says a city is in Outer Slobovia is not acceptable, because including that city would be synthesis! And checking various sources to find out what cities reliable sources say are in Outer Slobovia is original research!
This nomination should be closed as "keep" without any further discussion, as there is no valid reason for it—the only plausible reason for it at the time it was made is that the article needed more sources, and now it has them. WP:BEFORE says that the editor should have attempted to determine whether such sources existed before nominating the article for deletion. Either the nominator failed to do so, or having discovered them chose to ignore them and nominate the article for deletion, even though reliable sources existed. WP:BEFORE clearly states that articles should be deleted when a reasonable search indicates that reliable sources do not exist, not because they have not yet been cited. And now they have been cited, and the article is in much better shape than it was a day ago. An article that can be substantially improved and its actual problems addressed with a few hours' work is not a candidate for deletion. P Aculeius (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius: I've got 3 things to say.
  1. Thanks for improving the contents by adding a lot of secondary RS citations. Regardless of whether we keep the article (under the current title or in its current form), or split/merge its contents, these contents will now probably be rather valuable in one form or another.
  2. Although your edits have solved the
    WP:LISTCRIT
    remain unaddressed. I can explain why, but first we need to deal with something else:
  3. I don't like your tone. You're systematically accusing me of incompetence and implying that I am deliberately ignoring rules such as
    WP:LISTCRIT
    issues.) How am I supposed to work with you and solve an issue if you're asserting that I am not even capable and willing of editing Wikipedia properly?
Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, I apologize for the hostility of my response last night. I recognize that you are capable of editing Wikipedia properly, and that you have done so for a long time. However, I still believe that you are misinterpreting what constitutes synthesis and original research.
With respect to SIGCOV, many reliable sources cover the topic of this article: wars between Rome and the Gauls. Virtually every article about Gauls generally or individual tribes of Gauls in a secondary source will discuss their interactions with Rome; every history of the Roman Republic discusses multiple wars between Rome and the Gauls or various Gallic tribes. Polybius, one of the main sources for this topic from antiquity, gives, as Cornell describes it, a general survey of Rome's wars with the Gauls down to his time.
A particularly good example of a general if brief treatment of the subject in modern sources is in Cornell's chapter on Roman expansion during the early Republic (chapter 12), sections 6 and 8. Section 6 deals specifically with the Gallic sack of Rome (section 7 discusses the mythologizing of Camillus), while section 8 returns to Rome's rebuilding and expansion following the Gallic sack, with a short survey of conflicts involving the Gauls during the fourth century at pp. 324 and 325, the latter concluding by mentioning panic over possible Gallic threats before, during, and after the Punic Wars, down to 114 BC. This is just after the death of Polybius, and all of the latter fall beyond the period upon which Cornell's book focuses (Rome from its foundation myths down to 264 BC, before the beginning of the Punic Wars), but he still regards all of these as part of a discrete topic.
NLIST says, "[o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". The sources you mentioned in your nomination do this; so does Cornell in his treatment; so do pretty much all articles about the Gauls in Roman times. It is not necessary that they use the word "list" or that they all refer to the various wars by a single name, much less the title of this article; if the title were problematic, it could be addressed by finding a better title, but that would not involve deleting the article. The fact that some of them do use this title, and the fact that the title accurately describes the content of the list, are both arguments that this title is fine, but again, disagreement about the title is not an argument for deletion.
NLIST also says very clearly that "[t]he entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Clearly it is not synthesis for the list to include items that are not listed in this source or that source. Only that reliable sources document that they meet the criteria to go in such a list, e.g. that they are conflicts between Rome and the Gauls. This is not an indiscriminate list of unrelated things, or a complex cross-categorization. It is a logical and discrete topic treated by various sources, even if none of them individually cover the entire list of conflicts from beginning to end.
I think you are confusing the name of this topic with whether it is notable. I cannot imagine any historian of Roman times arguing that it is not a distinct or discrete topic, or that it is not a notable topic. Greek and Roman historians frequently mention various Gallic wars together, as do modern surveys of various related subjects, such as Roman expansion from the late fifth century onward, or articles about the Gauls generally, or the Senones, Insubres, Allobroges, etc. This should be more than sufficient to demonstrate notability of the topic, and justify the existence of this list. P Aculeius (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Apology accepted. It's okay to believe I am misinterpreting rules, because everyone can make mistakes, including you and me, and I'm always open to learning more.
many reliable sources cover the topic of this article: wars between Rome and the Gauls. That just means each of those wars is individually pass
WP:NLIST
: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines. You claim The sources you mentioned in your nomination do this, but I think I have demonstrated that they do not:
  • Salley 2013 and Hupfauf 2020 use Roman-Gallic wars as a synonym for Caesar's Gallic Wars (58–51 BCE), which is arguably just 1 war (which is why Webster 1996 alternately names it the Second Transalpine War, singular).
  • Ferenczy 1976 uses Roman-Gallic wars as a name for a conflict around 350 BCE, which does not (and cannot) include the Gallic Wars of 58–51 BCE because Ferenczy bases himself on Polybius who died in 118 BCE (before Caesar was even born in 100 BCE). Claudia Sagona 2005 similarly refers to the Roman-Gallic wars of the 3rd century, which by definition excludes the Gallic Wars of 58–51 BCE, as well as the mid-4th-century wars Ferenczy (and by extension Polybius) are talking about. (Although the fact that she uses a lowercase w implies it is an ad hoc grouping for that specific century, and other "Roman-Gallic wars" could have been waged in other centuries; but concluding that therefore, there were, would be
    WP:SYNTH
    ).
  • Maxfield 2008 is the only one who provides a clear start and end date, and explicitly identifies the starting event (sack of Rome 390 BCE), and implicitly the ending event (Caesar's Gallic Wars). This is the only source that possibly meets the requirement of properly discussing the list topic as a group or set. But apart from those 3 sentences, Maxfield doesn't really say anything about these wars; the rest of his paragraph "1.1.4 Italy" is actually devoted to the wars between Romans and Etruscans; the Gauls are only mentioned once more: In the last of the century the Gauls actually settled down in northern Italy (Cisalpine Gaul) laying the foundations for the cities of Turin, Bergamo and Milan. Hardly a reference to their history of military conflict with Rome. So, this passing reference would still not meet
    WP:SIGCOV
    . Moreover, we can only extract a "set" of just 2 items from Maxfield: the starting and ending event. I don't know if there is a minimum requirement for the number of items that a list must have in order to be considered a "list", but 2 is.... rather meagre.
  • Heather Lyn 2019, the only other source that comes close to discussing the list topic as a group through the phrase the series of Roman-Gallic Wars, identifies only a single event, namely the Gallic sack of Rome in 387/6 BCE, and has no explicit starting and ending dates/events, except that she implies these wars were still not done by the 1st century CE, even though Maxfield ends them explicitly with Caesar (so, in the 50s BCE). Thus, Lyn's passing remarks do not meet NLIST and SIGCOV either, and it would be
    WP:SYNTH
    to assert she and Maxfield are in alignment.
This situation could be a reason to turn this article/list into a disambiguation page, as I suggested (and Ifly6 already voted for), but it would not be a sufficient reason to keep it as it is.
The argument you are making about Cornell allegedly regard[ing] all of these as part of a discrete topic by going through his entire book and selecting chapters, sections and pages, without ever citing a passage that clearly and unambiguously identifies and discusses the "Roman-Gallic wars" as a group or set still strikes me as
WP:SYNTH
: Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source.
It is not necessary that they use the word "list" or that they all refer to the various wars by a single name I know, but that is not what I am arguing. In fact, yesterday I argued at Talk:Roman–Etruscan Wars#Need for article? that the combination of RS that use "Roman–Etruscan Wars", "Etruscan Wars" and "Etruscan–Roman Wars" was just sufficient for keeping the article (because even though they use different terms and do not exactly agree on periodisation, together they allow the topic to pass SIGCOV/NLIST). If other terms have been used to discuss the so-called Roman-Gallic wars as a group with SIGCOV, I would be all open to that. My nom doesn't hinge on a single term, but I haven't seen any viable alternative.
Clearly it is not synthesis for the list to include items that are not listed in this source or that source. True, but the only RS that provides the faintest suggestion of a list that discusses the topic as a group or set, Maxfield, has only 2 items. The current article
WP:CSC
that require every item [to be] verifiably a member of the group.).
In conclusion: I really tried. I just could not find enough RS that are sufficient to comply to the policies and guidelines that could save this article from deletion. I appreciate your efforts in improving the article, and you've solved the PRIMARY issue, but otherwise my objections stand. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Greek and Roman historians frequently mention various Gallic wars together, as do modern surveys of various related subjects, such as Roman expansion from the late fifth century onward if so, would you be so kind as to cite them? That would solve this whole issue. I tried, but I haven't been able to find them, which is the reason for my nomination. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're still confusing the title of the article with a deletion discussion. You claim that the title isn't supported by a sufficient number of reliable sources—that doesn't make the topic invalid or even the title invalid, and even if it were, it wouldn't be a valid reason to delete the article. Articles are deleted because they're not notable, not because they don't have a good title. And a title that accurately describes the contents of the article is fine whether or not it's used by reliable sources, as long as those sources don't provide a better title.
Also, I clearly stated that the two sections in Cornell describing this topic are part of the same chapter, interrupted only by a discussion of the mythologizing of Camillus—a figure intimately connected with both the Gallic sack of 390 and the supposed Gallic raid of 367, which he is supposed to have come out of retirement to rout as an elderly man shortly before his death. Section 7 is a digression from an otherwise continuous narrative in Chapter 12 about Roman conflicts with the Gauls. And the discussion at pages 324 and 325 is one continuous discussion of Roman wars against the Gauls stretching from Camillus down to the Punic Wars and beyond. It is not picking and choosing different bits of scattered material—although I still maintain that as long as any sources discuss wars between the Romans and Gauls in general, then you cannot reasonably argue that listing such conflicts in a single article constitutes synthesis, no matter how many sources or how many parts of those sources you cite different incidents to.
The fact that we have sources already cited in the article that discuss one or more series of such conflicts, either describing Gauls generally or specific subsets of Gauls making war on Rome or being conquered by Rome on multiple occasions over many years ought to satisfy any criteria for proving that this is an actual topic—I cannot understand the distinction you are trying to make here. It makes absolutely no sense to me. You say your objections stand; I say they do not. P Aculeius (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks for that response. I think you and I will not be able to reach agreement on this, as we seem to be repeating the same arguments, and I do not see a way of responding to your latest response except through arguments that I have already made. I suppose that input from other users is needed to resolve the matter. Shall I ping a few editors with whom I've been discussing Roman military history in recent days? (They aren't people who will necessarily agree with either of us, they are users I have never or barely interacted with before, but they are interested and experienced in these kinds of topics). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps that would be prudent. What about posting at the WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome talk page? I sometimes post there when I think a talk page discussion needs more input, although lately not as many different voices respond as I'm accustomed to seeing. Still, it's the logical place to ask, IMO. Thank you for keeping calm when I was having difficulty doing the same. We may not agree on this nomination, but we can at least discuss it civilly. P Aculeius (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well why not both? You could post on that talk page and I'll ping a few editors, and we'll see who responds. And you're welcome; frustration is common when Wikipedians cannot agree, and I'm glad we were able to get the discussion to this point. I don't do AfDs often, and although I've familiarised myself with all these rules over the course of years, it's still possible that I've missed something. I hadn't foreseen we would have such a different interpretation of the rules, but we'll see what others think. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I suppose the fact that your focus is classical antiquity, whereas mine is military history (although mostly post-antiquity), makes for different perspectives. I'm used to being very critical of a lack of (good) sources, but for antiquity we usually have very few (primary) sources to go on in the first place, so perhaps there are other standards at play. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But there are several sources already cited in the article that clearly describe a series of such wars together, beginning with the very first surviving source, Polybius, as well as a very concise discussion in Cornell, mentioned several times in this AfD. The articles I cited from the OCD about individual Gallic tribes and regions also treat multiple wars in this sequence as parts of single topics, i.e. multiple engagements with the Senones, or the Insubres, or the Boii, or the Allobroges—with the additional notation that in some instances the authorities disagree as to which of these was involved on particular occasions, which is a pretty good reason for combining the various conflicts into an article like this, which can serve as an overview of the topic and a means of navigating between related subjects, such as the aforementioned tribes, and articles about specific wars, battles, locations, or persons involved, i.e. Cisalpine Gaul, Aquitania, Brennus, Camillus, Caesar.
Even minimal documentation should be adequate to support the fact that various wars between Rome and the Gauls belong to a set of all wars between Rome and the Gauls—really this should be as simple as tautology—and we have much more than minimal documentation supporting this already cited in the article. It cannot be difficult to find and add more, although it should not be necessary to do so solely for the purpose of justifying the article's existence. P Aculeius (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a point that I perhaps should have raised much, much earlier is the fact that, unlike the Romans, who were politically and military united in the
WP:NONDEFINING for individuals, for (former) states/countries, and to an extent also to groups of people if no direct connection can be made to the language family purely from the point of view of linguistics. This is not an exhaustive list, but it might give you an idea why e.g. Category:Celtic rulers and Category:Germanic empires
etc. have been deleted:
Thus, the idea that "the Gauls" fought a series of wars or battles over the course of several centuries with the Romans may not be that "self-evident" if it is not self-evident that we should regard them as a political or military unit. Although some sources indeed lump them together, it's questionable whether Wikipedia should go along with that rather broad generalisation. Based on the precedents above, I'm beginning to wonder whether we should CfD Category:Battles involving the Gauls, Category:Battles involving the Celts, Category:Battles involving Germanic peoples etc. as they appear to categorise groups of people united by a language according to the language family that language belonged to. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging some editors I've been discussing Roman military history with in the past few days @T8612, Botteville, GenoV84, and Eponymous-Archon: perhaps you would like to comment? Your input could be very valuable. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I agree with editors
    additional secondary sources and reworking, but it is relevant for the history of relations between the Romans and Gauls and clearly meets the WP criteria for notability; from my perspective, there's no need to delete it. GenoV84 (talk) 09:56, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Convert to list or disambiguation page, this article is just summing up a large number of independent conflicts. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion. I think the article can either be converted to a list, or if someone feels brave enough to write an article about Roman-Gaul relations before the conquest. T8612 (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per P Aculeius and AirshipJungleman29. The page as is is a useful quasi-list or disam page which works fine. Renaming is a different matter, which only confuses the issue if discussed here - I might support a different title, or not. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. I got pinged. There is always a question whether original presentation amounts to original research. Granted there was no specific bunching of Rome's wars as "the Romano-Gallic" as opposed to Caesars "Gallic". Is therefore Romano-Gallic an original contribution or just a device of presentation? I would say, change the name, maybe to "Wars between Romans and Gauls" or "Roman wars with Gauls" or some such thing that does not imply an original public usage. Or, if we have an author that uses the term as we present it, bring him to the fore in the intro, and attribute the term to him. The article as I see it IS a list articles rather than a disambig. Since the term is not in general use why would we need a disambig to unconfuse it? Anyway to me the most attractive and flexible form of a list article is a table or tables, arrangeable by any scheme you wish. If you have one table you can have it sortable on any column, let us say by date or nation. As the Romans were surrrounded by Gauls on the north they certainly were not all of one nation; for example, Gallia was not Britannia. Tables also are most amenable to small pictures in one of the columns, and you can use abbreviated table-type talk. I therefore vote for reworking this article extensively in sandbox space with adequate cross-links so the editors can get back and forth. When it is done, delete the current article and drop in the new after a name change. That will give us something to do and open a path to improvement.Botteville (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The point that all the Gauls were a nation in ancient times is a good one. To me it feels like some of this disagreement emerges at the root from the 19th century retrojection of nationhood onto every ethnic group but set that aside. What do you think about a disambiguation or list that answers the question "which Gauls"? Ifly6 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent points, both of you. It's similar to the one I have made about regarding "the Gauls" as if it is a politically and militarily united group which acts like a united group. The evidence very much shows they did not; we've got a very large and diverse number of tribes that appear to have nothing in common, except speaking languages that belong to the family of Celtic languages. And "Celtic" and "Gallic/Gaulish" aren't even synonyms, because folks like the Celtiberians were/are not counted amongst "the Gauls" and not categorised as Category:Gauls, but they are still counted as "Celts" and categorised as Category:Celtic tribes of the Iberian Peninsula. The same goes for the Celtic tribes in Britannia.
    Another point is that Gaul/Gallia is not reducible to just modern-day France (as Lyn 2019 incorrectly claimed), because there was this thing called Gallia Transalpina, Gallia Belgica etc. which (partially) lay outside of the modern French Republic's borders.
    All of these just point to modern efforts to unite "the Gauls" into a unit, even though "the Gauls" never were united. And Wikipedia shouldn't take things so far beyond the reliable sources so as to imply unity – be it in space, in time, or in populations – where the reliable sources describe none. The result of rash generalisations could be an article claiming or implying that the Romans and "the Gauls" were at near-constant war for c. 339, even though the years of peace massively outnumbered the years of war, and the, say, Insubres, had probably pretty much faded from history and been Romanised by the time Caesar ran into the Menapii, and these two "Gallic" tribes will absolutely never have known about each other's existence. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per Ifly6, redirect to
    Avilich (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep -- This is essentially a list article, listing conflicts between Rome and various Gallic tribes. I do not see much wrong with the title, but if some one can suggest a better name we can of course change it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a more common or descriptive name, like, List of wars between the Roman Empire and Gallic/Celtic tribes, or what have you. Andre🚐 04:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC) Andre🚐 04:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question (and I realize this may sound like a dumb question for an experienced editor, but I'm being cautious): would calling it a list impose any new restrictions on the article's content or formatting? I don't think it should, since I know we have Roman-related articles classified as lists that contain significant amounts of text in non-listing sections, but the ones I'm thinking of aren't are titled as lists. And I'm not worried about preserving the contents unaltered, but I do want to be sure that there's no objection to any of the current contents based solely on whether the article is called "list of Roman-Gallic wars" or something similar. Even if there's not, I'm not certain that it's better than the current title, which is reasonably descriptive, but more concise. P Aculeius (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an Afd discussion. We should concentrate on Keep/Delete. If, as seems likely, it is kept, then other discussions can sort the format & title. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, but I also think it's worthwhile asking those who want to do something other than merely keeping or deleting the article whether their proposals would require other changes to the formatting or contents of the article. Given that I spent quite a while rewriting the individual items and citing various sources in order to help save the article from deletion, I wouldn't want to see it reduced to a few lines with minimal information and citations, like a disambiguation page (which some people here have proposed). P Aculeius (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm largely still of the view that it should be reduced to a disambiguation page. But the work that you've put into the article doesn't need to and shouldn't be deleted. The Romans did in fact fight a number of wars with different Gallic or Celtic peoples. Many of the articles we have on those conflicts are very bare. There does not exist, for example, any article at all on the Roman conquest of Cisalpine Gaul – the specific name may be up for determination, though Liv. 31–34 doesn't seem to provide an overarching name beyond "Consul XYZ fought [Gallic tribe] ABC", – after the Second Punic war (though even the name "Cisalpine Gaul" is somewhat anachronistic for that period; see CAH2 8 p 107 In 201 there was not even a geographical expression to apply to the area which the Romans later came to call Gallia Cisalpina... it was not a single political or even ethnic unit). If it is disambiguated, that content can just be moved. Ifly6 (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the Roman "conquest of Cisalpine Gaul" should probably be focused around the Battle of Clastidium, the conquest of Mediolanum and the wider war they waged in the 220s BCE against the Insubres (and Boii). I would personally expect something like Roman–Insubric war, but I would have to check the literature on that. I'm not sure if "Cisalpine Gaul" captures the proper region though; as your quote says very well, Gallia Cisalpina (...) was not a single political or even ethnic unit. For one, contrary to popular belief, Gallia Cisalpina didn't become a "province" as far as I can tell. Secondly, the Adriatic Veneti had always been Rome's faithful allies and gradually assimilated into Roman/Latin culture without being "Gallic" or ever being "conquered", yet as part of northern Italy, their territory is often lumped together with "Cisalpine Gaul". And so on.
    For
    First Transalpine War
    , there are sufficient secondary sources to turn that redirect into a fully-fledged article.
    And so on and so forth. Rather than a great big article lumping everything and everyone together under the rubric "Gallic", I think we should indeed focus on the individual conflicts. The disambiguation option is probably one of the best we currently have. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And something that hasn't been noted yet: improving and expanding the Roman expansion in Italy page is perhaps a much better strategy. It allows us to talk about all military engagements within Italy that Rome fought against any opponent, rather than trying to lump particular groups together according to modern ethnolinguistic classifications that don't fit ancient reality. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Moving, splitting and merging are best discussed in a different venue at this point. Srnec (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2023 (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 withdrawn. ✗plicit 03:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Situation

Critical Situation (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 appear to be notable. Nothing found in a BEFORE. Tagged for notability since 2020.

PROD removed with "try AfD" and zero improvements. DonaldD23 talk to me 01:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
    reliable sources. I added
    these sources to the article:
    1. Ashby, Emily (2019-09-20). "Critical Situation: TV review by Emily Ashby, Common Sense Media". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.

      The review notes: "Suspenseful and well crafted, Critical Situation is an addiction waiting to happen for adults, but be wary about sharing it with kids, since it's full of graphic, violent re-enactments of gun battles and vehicular crashes. It's also worth mentioning that when firearms come into play, the show gives detailed run-downs -- complete with graphic illustrations -- of the advantages and disadvantages of the functions of various weapon choices."

    2. Pearson, Mike (2007-08-28). "Killers on the loose - National Geographic tracks tigers, Pablo Escobar". Rocky Mountain News. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.

      The article notes: "So it is with Critical Situation: The Killing of Pablo, premiering at 8 p.m. today. This compelling documentary looks at the hunt for billionaire drug czar Pablo Escobar in the 1980s and early '90s, during which time he was responsible for the indiscriminate killing of hundreds of people, including 165 policemen. ... This excellent documentary combines news footage with reenactments to show just how powerful Escobar was. ... This compelling documentary can be violent, and there's a clear dichotomy between Escobar's ruthlessness and his devotion to his family. ... Killing Pablo plays like a real-life thriller: violent, unpredictable and filled with high-tech gadgets."

    3. McDonough, Kevin (2007-06-12). "Filmmaker seeks missing friend - 'Have You Seen Andy?' reignites police interest in case". The Grand Rapids Press. United Feature Syndicate. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.

      The article notes: "Tonight's "Critical" recalls a shootout in a Hollywood, Calif., bank on Feb. 28, 1997. Although the police anticipated a bank robbery, the gang of burglars was equipped with body armor and AK-47 machine guns. The police were completely outgunned during the incident. More than 1,100 rounds of ammunition were fired, striking nine officers in street combat captured by news cameras. Future episodes of "Critical" will look at the crisis on Apollo 13 and the anatomy of Australia's Sydney-to-Hobart yacht-race disaster."

    4. Newsome, Brad (2019-03-21). "Pay TV". The Age. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.

      The review notes: "Pick any episode of Situation Critical and you'll get an amazing story told clearly and concisely by people who were there. Here we hear first-hand from former Colombian president Cesar Gaviria, who went to war against Pablo Escobar at the risk of his own life, from Escobar's sister Marina, and from the deeply involved US ambassador of the time, Morris Busby."

    5. "Sunday, November 26". The Age. 2017-11-23. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.

      The review notes: "The Israeli special forces' daring rescue of the passengers of a hijacked airliner in Entebbe, Uganda, in 1976 is an amazing tale. It's also a fairly complicated one that could have become a muddle in the hands of lesser documentary makers. The folks behind Situation Critical, however, excel at weaving classy dramatisations, fine computer graphics and interviews with key players into clear, compelling narratives."

    6. Loft, Kurt (2007-06-25). "Fast Forward". The Tampa Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.

      The article notes: "If you haven't heard the story behind one of America's most gripping space missions, tune in "Critical Situation: Apollo 13," a new documentary airing at 9 p.m. Tuesday on the National Geographic Channel. Apollo 13 was NASA's third scheduled manned lunar-landing mission, but an oxygen tank explosion on April 11, 1970, threw the crew into peril. The documentary brings to life this near-tragic situation 200,000 miles from home and explains the innovative strategies that brought the crew back safely."

    7. Banov, Jessica (2007-06-19). "TV Diva". The Fayetteville Observer. Archived from the original on 2023-04-07. Retrieved 2023-04-07.

      The article notes: "“Critical Situation ”: This series explores that one moment in someone's life that thrusts him or her into the history books. Apollo 13 and the Taliban uprising are subjects of some episodes. But tonight's show focuses on U.S. Air Force Capt. O'Grady, whose jet was downed over Bosnia in 1995. In a pre-Jessica Lynch era, he gained fame for surviving for six days by munching on ants and dodging Serbs until Marines rescued him. 9 p.m. National Geographic"

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

    Cunard (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

    ]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:20, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Laing family

Laing family (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 and verifiability issues

Stub, unsourced (general ref is dead link), created by sus account who only ever edited one other, related, article RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_April_5&oldid=1149657095"