Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 15

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< August 14 August 16 >

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 Speedy keep. Not just per

WP:SNOW, but nominating at the midst of the recent controversy—which is a bad look for him—is not a great look for Wikipedia (i.e. might comes across as retaliatory). El_C 22:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)‎[reply
]

Linus Sebastian

AfDs for this article:
Linus Sebastian (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)

Sourcing does not suggest independent notability, especially for an individual. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
    Talk to my owner:Online 23:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies, particularly those on
notability for people. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Please, remain
assume good faith. —siroχo 03:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
what does that have to do with the keep message? Sebbog13 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the more appropriate question is what does the rest of what was posted after the keep itself has to do with the article in question. Both the responses by Siroxo and ElijahPepe were applicable. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All things considered this seems to be a rather major and well established youtube channel host. I do however feel that the article needs to be cleaned up with additional focus on his channel ("Linus Tech Tips"). Articles such as
    TheNeedleDrop or Philip DeFranco may serve as good comparisons for the scope of articles that cover large-but-not-massive youtubers. A MINOTAUR (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
NoteThere is extensive focus on his/his company's numerous YT channels and company in Linus Media Group. Shifting that focus over to the article centered around him would be a mistake, extend well beyond the scope of the individual, and would take away from the LMG article. I would urge against this. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets
    WP:NBIO
    :
  • "This YouTube Star Is Also a Retail Empire (Published 2022)". 2022-02-15. Retrieved 2023-08-16.
  • "Surrey man's tech-tip series achieves YouTube success - Peace Arch News". www.peacearchnews.com. 2017-01-26. Retrieved 2023-08-16.
  • Nast, Condé (2021-12-26). "Meet the 'Influpreneurs': The new breed of YouTube influencers staffing up and building business empires". British GQ. Retrieved 2023-08-16.
Jumpytoo Talk 04:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clearly meets
    WP:CREATIVE. I think it is self evident that "become a significant monument" is clearly met. Not really sure why this is being proposed. If you made this in good faith, you should probably start going through and creating AfDs for pretty much any YouTuber (like Marques Brownlee). He's also commonly cited in various media outlets for issues facing YouTube creators, like YouTube is demonetizing videos about coronavirus, and creators are mad. Lightcrowd (talk) 10:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Only two sources that mention Sebastian specifically are a NYT and a Kotaku article. Most other sources are primary, which does not suggest independent notability.Cortador (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also other sources, such as an Inc. Magazine article. If anything, this wiki article just needs to be expanded/TLC. I can find references to Linus in BBC, The Verge, Arstechnica, CNN and a few other news websites (prior to 2023). Seems to meed NBIO to me. I think a cleanup template message is more appropriate (too many primary sources, expansion, etc) is more appropriate. If the primary host and creator of the multiple Linus Media Group channels isn't notable enough, then I feel like it sets a precedent for more AfDs for other notable content creators across Wikipedia. Lightcrowd (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I just wanted to mention this nomination may (or may not, I do not intent to accuse people) be influenced by a recent controversy and some YouTube & Reddit drama involving the subject's behaviour (The gist of this drama is that he made huge blunders in a video about a startup's prototype and then bashed the startup and refused to fix the errors, auctioned off the prototype without permission, has a history of making basic mistakes in his videos, and recently a former employee has alleged mistreatment at this guy's company). So I would suggest that some admins and more experienced editors be on the look-out for randos commenting here without any other contribs. Tube·of·Light 12:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original nomination was over 7 years ago, and Linus' notoriety has certainly only increased since then. Yes - the sourcing lends itself to not being the highest quality article, but not at all warrants an AfD nomination, and can likely and rather easily be fixed such as Lightcrowd mentioned above. In reality, this AfD is quite possibly retaliatory in nature due to recent controversies. If there were a way to nominate an AfD for deletion - this nomination would be a prime candidate. Picard's Facepalm (talk) 13:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article clearly passes
    話す? 一緒に飛ぼう！) 14:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Article needs improvement but meets WP:BIO AfD is overly extreme. UndeadAnarchy (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are you kidding me? Linus Sebastian is severely notable as a person, he's been talked about in mainstream publications including the New York Times and The Verge, and this article has existed for years. This AfD is in my opinion a joke. Doesn't help that it was made after the Gamers Nexus controversy as well, making me think that there is some sort of ulterior motive behind this AfD, to let out some internal anger re: said controversy. I'm voting Keep purely because this AfD comes off as nothing but a joke as well as Linus just being severely notable as an individual. -
    leave a message · contributions) 20:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Keep
A. Linus is a notable person.
B. The article needs improving, not deleting
C. There are sources for Linus across various internet sources and news sites.
D. I think that this has been inflated by recent controversy. Jguiii (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable figure in the realm of both PC/technology and YouTube, per WP:NBIO and WP:WEB. Genuinely surprised to even see an AfD on him in the first place, considering there are sources about him from The New York Times, Kotaku, PC Gamer, Mashable, Lifehacker, The Washington Post, BGR and Ars Technica among other sources editors already pointed above. I hope this gets closed as a Snow Keep. PantheonRadiance (talk) 22:15, 16 August 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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator as wrong venue.

(non-admin closure) Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Bankruptcy of Penn Central

Bankruptcy of Penn Central (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)

Propose merge into Penn Central Transportation Company. This article only had 3 paragraphs about the bankruptcy. The rest is about the Penn Central Transportation Company. Not sure this calls for a standalone page. Longhornsg (talk) 22:37, 15 August 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 Manic Street Preachers discography#Extended plays. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Know Our B-Sides

AfDs for this article:
Know Our B-Sides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't satisfy

WP:NALBUM, just as it didn't satisfy it in 2012, when all relevant material was merged into Manic Street Preachers discography. Restore Redirect to Manic Street Preachers discography#Extended plays. Muhandes (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

KEEP - this single stands out as one of only 2 ever released exclusively in Japan. The discography is also incomplete without it. Also, there is an article and a discog template entry for
Know Our B-Sides EP should both be kept. This track isn't some unofficial, non-authorized 12" whitelabel, it's an officially released single - but according to some Wikipedians, it doesn't count because it was only released in Japan. Should we remove the tracklistings of the Japanese album versions because they don't count too? Wikipedia specifically aims to not solely focus on the English speaking world as reiterated in . Finally, as per Wikipedia:Notability (music)
, "Specific to recordings, a recording may be notable if it meets at least one of these criteria: The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it.". This has been satisfied because it appears on reputable Japanese sites. Furthermore, "the recording has appeared on any country's music chart". This single has, so it has satisfied two conditions where only one is required for notability.
Finally, @Muhandes: stated above "...just as it didn't satisfy it in 2012, when all relevant material was merged into Manic Street Preachers discography.". Why are you making statements that aren't true? None of this article was merged into the above, other than the title of the EP and the year. Your point is null and void because it's just not true Apeholder (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin:

AfD
.

@
WP:NALBUM which is not satisfied. Muhandes (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Muhandes: the title and year is clearly not enough to satisfy your "it's contained elsewhere" assertion. Where does it say that those two pieces of info are enough? This EP has satisfied various conditions of the criteria you specified Apeholder (talk) 16:34, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:NALBUM not being satisfied. Show that it is satisfied by editing the article, and I will be very happy to withdraw this nomination. Muhandes (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:NALBUM that you keep referring to: "That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." By this logic, none of their singles should be included on Wikipedia. Also, I have read the First deletion discussion you referenced, but again nobody was able to describe why this article should be deleted but that the rest are notable enough to keep. One person even says "I Googled it and couldn't find much". It's a Japanese only release and Google shows you English articles! Of COURSE they wouldn't find much! There are also far more references to notability for this release than most other Manics articles. The release is notable enough to be included on WP as any others are, and it does not make sense having an incomplete discography on here because someone is being over-zealous when it comes to interpreting WP guidelines. I would love to hear an explanation. If this can be satisfied, then yes the article should be deleted.Apeholder (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Muhandes (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Further Away shows this EXACT type of article exists already, not similar or totally unrelated as your example shows, but the EXACT same. The fact you offered this as a counter argument suggests you are either being very disingenuous or don't know the first thing about the subject matter. Also, have you noticed how I'm giving you extensive replies, and yours are pretty much one-liners with stuff that's not even relevant? So far you have said things that are clearly false and other things totally unrelated.Apeholder (talk) 18:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP if the other single mentioned above is also the same thing as this single is, then why is that somehow accepted but this isn't? We need a complete discography. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.147.104 (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— 109.78.147.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more substantive input. Previous relist failed to actually transclude this to the July 20 log so it got lost
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 22:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirct per nom.   ArcAngel   (talk) 22:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per nom. A
    WP:BEFORE search shows little to no sources, and if the article is to be kept, then the unreliable references (Discogs, Rate Your Music, etc.) need to be removed, but I'm inclined to redirect. Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 08:14, 16 August 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 Draftify‎. A similar case to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hams That Couldn't Be Cured but the consensus here is to Draftify so I'll carry that out. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Little Bass and the Big Bad Gar

The Three Little Bass and the Big Bad Gar (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)

Disputed draftification. Fails WP:NBOOK, lacks any sources. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:07, 15 August 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. I usually support Draftification but this has been contested twice already. Should the article creator want to continue working on this article in Draft space, hopefully by finding a few reliable sources to verify this subject's notability, let me or

WP:REFUND know by making a request. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The Hams That Couldn't Be Cured

The Hams That Couldn't Be Cured (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)

Disputed draftification. Fails

WP:V therefore not (yet) appropriate for main space 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:05, 15 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Blackstock

Terri Blackstock (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; no sources found in searches other than book selling and promotional sites. ---Avatar317(talk) 21:21, 15 August 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 Governance without government. Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero world government

Zero world government (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)

As I hadn't heard of the term "zero world government" before, and I noticed the single cited source in this article didn't mention it, I looked into it on Google Scholar. This search only turned up 3 results for the term, none of which go into further depth on it than a definition.[2] On the other hand, the other leading term "governance without government" (which already has its own article) turned up 14,500 results,[3] while the term "governance beyond the nation state" turned up 2,110.[4] As there appears to be no substantial coverage in reliable services of the term "zero world government", I propose this be deleted and any (little) relevant information from this article merged into the article on governance without government. Grnrchst (talk) 20:54, 15 August 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 Presidential system#Presidentialism metrics. Liz Read! Talk! 06:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presidentialism metrics

Presidentialism metrics (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 topic; only content is basically a republishing of one organization's "Presidentialism index", no hits elsewhere. Looks like it was created by V-Dem, so it will remain a republishing of their index.

talk] 19:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge with the editor's other article
    Democracy indices (V-Dem), or delete. I'm not even sure what any of this means, except the only definition I find of "indice" that it's another word for "index". — Maile (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Merge back into Presidential system#Presidentialism metrics. HudecEmil (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Doyle, David, and Robert Elgie. "Maximizing the reliability of cross-national measures of presidential power." British Journal of Political Science 46.4 (2016): 731-741.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. It's clear that the outcome here will be a Redirect or Merge but we have 3 different target articles proposed and it shouldn't come down to the closer doing "Eeny meeny miny moe".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in addendum to my !vote, I think the target should be
    Presidentialism#Presidentialism metrics. Whether it stays there long term or moves to another article is more of page-level editorial decision, but that's the most precise merge/redirect as of this discussion. —siroχo 20:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to
    Presidentialism#Presidentialism metrics. Per nom and others, not notable enough to warrant a standalone article. Per siroxo, this would be the most precise merge/redirect target. Sal2100 (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Siroxo and Sal2100, that page is a redirect. Did you mean its redirect target, Presidential system#Presidentialism metrics? I have a script installed that shows redirects in a different color (in this case, green). Liz Read! Talk! 00:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, sorry, my eyes read the same word and didn't notice the redirect. Yes I do mean that page. —siroχo 00:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. I meant Presidential system#Presidentialism metrics as well. Sal2100 (talk) 18:48, 16 August 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 Jinx (band). Liz Read! Talk! 02:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Mosquito

Coco Mosquito (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails

WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • {{R from member}} Jinx (band)? --Joy (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Jinx (band) per Joy - not notable enough for its own article NotAGenious (talk) 11:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Found a couple of interviews, one quite detailed [6], [7] but not much else. Seems to be quite well known. Perhaps there is more out there with the right person doing the search. Redirect otherwise. scope_creepTalk 07:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject clearly does not meet the criteria set by
    it is not. Many musicians or, in general, artists, might be important to us personally but this means little in terms of the project. -The Gnome (talk) 12:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jinx (band) Elttaruuu (talk) 14:42, 17 August 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! 19:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aivita Muze

Aivita Muze (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 tried draftifying the article only to find out that it was too old. My rationale was that the subject isn't fully notable enough per sources. The sources in the article are only her agency and the (which only verifies work but does not establish notability) and a press release from the brand Hugo Boss. The Vogue source is the image from her walking the runway for a notable fashion house but like I said before that only verifies work rather than showing notability as if she had been chosen for one of their 'Top X models of the season" articles or if they did an article about herself. I tried looking for sources in Latvian to no avail which brings me here. Trillfendi (talk) 18:59, 15 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Kevena Reid

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

The subject has made at least four appearances for the

WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:43, 15 August 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. This AFD has been open for three weeks now and I don't see a consensus. No comments made since the last relisting so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 19:30, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Florentine flogging

Florentine flogging (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails

WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Draftify, per below. It can do some cleaning up. Brachy08 (Talk) 06:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I say merge main parts into relevant article(s) and leave a redirect. Stop with this speedy delete for all sexual articles. Biofase flame| stalk  21:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have there been a lot of "speedy delete" for those types of articles? — Maile (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes. It is common for new sexual or sexuality related articles to be the subject of speedy delete requests. It does not fit the criteria for speedy deletion. Wikipedia policy is to rather try and improve articles. If something isn't sourced then add a source, if an article is lacking then tag it appropriately so it gets more attention and only remove dubious statements, if it's not large enough for its own article then include it in others. Biofase flame| stalk  13:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is hardly a new article. It's been tagged for lacking notability since 2010. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:31, 15 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The Great Affairs

The Great Affairs (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 about a group that does not appear to meet

WP:GNG. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The article has been expanded since the AFD nomination but unfortunately, additional sources supporting notability were not included in this update.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - band is not notable enough and article sounds like an advertisement. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:39, 21 August 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.

(non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Singapore Mediation Centre

Singapore Mediation Centre (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:NORG, refs 1-2 are to parent organisation and 4-7 are the organisation, source 8 404s so I cannot review it, that leaves source 3. a before search for sources came up with unreliable sources such as social media etc. or partial matches such as the Singapore Mediation Convention. Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • [10] - SMC is the only centre in Singapore that allows mediations to be recognised by a court order
  • [11] - SMC mentioned as an "important development" in the history of ADR in Singapore
  • [12] - Chapter 2 is about the approach SMC mediators take
  • [13] - talks about SMC, its history and importance
  • [14] - mentions SMC
  • [15] - talks about SMC
See also: [16] - SMC develops an ADR process for .sg domains Dawkin Verbier (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
your source 1, singaporelawwatch has Copyright 2023 by Singapore Academy of Law which is the parent organisation thus not independent, 2 and 5 are from the singapore academy of law journal which is published the singapore academy of law, source 3, 6 and 7 are mentions thus not SIGCOV required for notability and your 8 is a brief paragraph. So in total your sources do not showcase how
WP:NORG is met as they are a mix of mentions and non-independent coverage. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I do not agree with your analysis of source independence. See
WP:ORGIND and WP:Independent sources. The fact that SAL is the parent organisation of the SMC does not ipso facto make the SAL Journal dependent on the SMC. The SAL Journal is a peer-reviewed academic journal that is remotely operated from the SMC. To claim dependence here would be like saying that, since Conde Nast owns both Bon Appetit and The New Yorker, The New Yorker's coverage of BA is always non-independent. You need to show how the coverage of SMC in the sources you claim are "non-independent" are actually as such; to my mind, they are factual, in themselves show how the SMC is notable, and do not demonstrate any undue attention given. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some additional input regarding the sources in the discussion would be good.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Actualcpscm (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Assessment of recent sources found would be useful for a closer to see.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:23, 15 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Dirty District

Dirty District (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:BAND, didn't sign to a record label, no songs made charts. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 18:16, 15 August 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 UK Independence Party. Liz Read! Talk! 19:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veterans Against Terrorism

Veterans Against Terrorism (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 am not sure this defunct oranisation passes N:ORG. The only source that mentions it in detail is the express.co.uk article. Vice mentions it in passing. Most of the sources lead to the dead website. Qcne (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • REDIRECT So I originally created this article just as a redirect to go along with this edit but when that edit was deleted in this diff the redirect no longer linked to anything about Veterans Against Terrorism.
If the article is to be deleted then I would request that the material in it be reinstated as a redirect to the history section of
WP:NOTCENSORED being breached. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@The Vintage Feminist I think that's a good idea. A subsection of the UKIP article makes sense. Qcne (talk) 19:42, 16 August 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 speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz Read! Talk! 05:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turkestan Offensive (1724)

Turkestan Offensive (1724) (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)

Hoax suspicion. There is only one source in the article without specifying the page, I could not find the fact on the Internet. The article itself is empty, does not contain a description of the exact events, we are simply presented with a fact. The author focuses all his attention on the infobox, where the sacred "KAZAKH VICTORY" appears for him. Kazman322 (talk) 10:25, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unreliable, not properly sourced, and the info box reeks of OR. Mccapra (talk) 08:15, 16 August 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.

(non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 20:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Tom George Kolath

Tom George Kolath (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:FILMMAKER. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just passing mentions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Among all the producers listed for deletion by the nominator, he has the most
    notability. Besides significant coverage in The Hindu article as above, he produced two major movies, one of which won the national award. He was also one of the leads in Akale, and had small but notable roles in Finger Print and Black (2004 film) Jupitus Smart 23:47, 19 August 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.

WP:NPASR applies. ✗plicit 07:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Arun Kumar V.R.

Arun Kumar V.R. (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:PRODUCER. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Just passing mentions. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 12:48, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 18:06, 15 August 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! 19:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Montesino

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

The subject has made at least six appearances for the

WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:57, 15 August 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! 19:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yoanna Calderón

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

The subject has made at least six appearances for the

WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:50, 15 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 19:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Leida Chirino

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

The subject has made at least four appearances for the

WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 17:42, 15 August 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 07:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Job Ross House

Job Ross House (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Building not listed on the NRHP. Fails

WP:NBUILD. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:39, 15 August 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 07:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

N.M. Badusha

N.M. Badusha (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:BASIC. Not received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The Doom Patrol (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 11:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:33, 15 August 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! 19:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lechitel

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

Fails

WP:RS. Couldn't find any more information about it after searching online, and no sources are listed on the article. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 16:56, 15 August 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 2009 North American Christmas blizzard. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Midwest Blizzard

2009 Midwest Blizzard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Long lost and forgotten article that only has a

WP:NOTABILITY. NoahTalk 16:42, 15 August 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 speedy delete‎. CSD G7. If the page creator wants this restored to User or Draft space to use for a future article, contact me or

WP:REFUND. Liz Read! Talk! 17:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Imagination philosophy

Imagination philosophy (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)

...Imagination philosophy is/was a Wikipedia Article in a PmWiki format, "https://www.pmwiki.org/". Please "Delete" my "edits" to this existing Article titled "Imagination philosophy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnbiology (talk • contribs) 20:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be an

essay and is basically incomprehensible. Asparagusus (interaction) 16:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete Appears to be an incomplete draft with no indication that, if finished, it would be a qualifying page. Appears to be a personal "theory"(?) by the page creator. Nothing of value. A MINOTAUR (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete an Existing "PmWiki" Wikipedia Article Titled Imagination philosophy, please check out the original PmWiki Article...The title "Imagination philosophy" in Wikipedia can not be linked or cited...this was only an attempt to hyperlink the title....This is/was an attempt to make an existing 'reference' page into a Article page...for citing and linking purposes only....This also was a response to 'Wiki discussion' about the Article "Imagination" combining related topics... If you can hyper link the title of the original, please do it. I'm sending this 'talk' to my sandbox for help, to make "Imagination philosophy" an Article some day. ThanksArnbiology (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please provide more information about the the original PmWiki Article, or perhaps a link? I did a search and forgive me but I couldn't find what you are talking about. I just want to be sure that this article is not a copy of the text from another site. That will be against the rules of Wikipedia. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)...The link to PmWiki... [1] Arnbiology (talk) 20:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...:*:I am raising this point because this article you created has a lot of text in the form of ... 51 KB (6,431 words) - 04:58, 8 August 2023. If you are directly copying from a different site. In most cases, this is not allowed. Please read Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...I was not copying, please "Delete" my "edits" to this existing PmWiki Article titled "Imagination philosophy"Arnbiology (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or draftify. It's an outline for an article that hasn't been written yet, and doesn't belong in mainspace. (I've no idea what "PmWiki" is.) Maproom (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...I was not outlining, I was trying to hyperlink the title only, please "Delete" my "edits" to this existing PmWiki Article titled "Imagination philosophy"Arnbiology (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply] 

::Liz, Please "Delete" my "editing" of the 'original' PmWiki "Imagination philosophy" Article...Please do not "Delete" the original page; It is a existing PmWiki Thumbnail Article that I was trying to hyperlink the title of-for easier access to the Article. In the discussion here, there seems some confusion about whether this is a Article or an edit...it's my editing that should be "Deleted"...I am moving to a sandbox to learn about Hyperlinking 'PmWiki Thumbnail Article Titles'.Arnbiology (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not an encyclopedia article. It looks like a new editor was just trying to organize their notes. Elspea756 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 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

O'Day station. Liz Read! Talk! 19:09, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

O'Day, Manitoba

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

No evidence that there was ever a community here. Natural Resources Canada lists it as a "railway point", so it's likely duplicate of

O'Day station. –dlthewave ☎ 15:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Redirect to the associated census district 23 - please see the very lengthy station-by-station analysis of stations and associated “towns” on the railroad to Hudson’s Bay that I posted previously at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Silcox station. I spent hours researching this points along this line. This location is a signpost in the middle of deep boreal forest and bogs. There’s no town. It’s many kilometers from any settlement. The flag stop serves the occasional canoeist or trapper. Look at it on satellite imagery and you can see there was never anything there.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A. B., I'm not sure I follow the logic of redirecting a rail point to a census district. –dlthewave ☎ 03:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is or was a railroad station article that should have been redirected to our article about the Winnipeg to Churchill train. (I’m on the road and using our awful mobile editor, so it’s hard to type here and check the status of the O’Day station article). There were a bunch of these “station” articles generated for signposts.
Then there town articles created for each signpost “station”. So far, those town articles that have been redirected have been redirected to the census division.
This is the O’Day “town” article.
All these articles are problematic nullities - stories of imaginary towns and railroad stations.
I’m flexible with how we get rid of them - redirect to the census division, railroad line, or train. Or, just delete outright.
I appreciate your work on this problem.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 03:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with the town articles is that there's no "town" source; someone took the same railway point entry and created both a town and railroad station article for each one. I'm flexible on the outcome as well, but I think they should be treated as duplicate railway points rather than towns/communities. Safe travels - I'll try not to bother you with anything too complicated! –dlthewave ☎ 03:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    O'Day station or Redirect to same, or Delete all seem reasonable options. My preference order is given. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 22 August 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

Lamprey station. Liz Read! Talk! 19:08, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Lamprey, Manitoba

Lamprey, Manitoba (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)

Duplicate of

Lamprey station. The "history" is a generic description of the Hudson Bay Railway. –dlthewave ☎ 14:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The station should be redirected to the article for the train.
—A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 13:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that the location and station are separate entities to be directed to different targets. They use the exact same sources (Geographical Names Data Base and VIA Rail) which only mention the rail point/station. I think that these are all duplicates that should be redirected to the railroad if not deleted outright. –dlthewave ☎ 14:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    Lamprey station or Redirect to same, or Delete all seem reasonable options. My preference order is given. ++Lar: t/c 14:39, 22 August 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 15:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tintumon

Tintumon (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails

WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak delete. While I'm unfamiliar with the subject, I can't seem to find much. Granted, I feel there may be sources out there, so if anything winds up from others' searches, let me know and I'd be willing to change my vote. Pokelego999 (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete insufficient
    WP:SIGCOV that can be found. Looks to be a neologism or thing made up. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:41, 17 August 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 15:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Julie Tilsner

Julie Tilsner (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails

WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:39, 15 August 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 15:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Ties That Bind (novel)

The Ties That Bind (novel) (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails

WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment - I'm finding no significant coverage or reviews on the book in English sources. Its possible that there may have been greater coverage in French sources, but I did notice that the French Wikipedia also does not have a stand alone article for this book, and merely redirects to the author's page where the book is covered as part of her biography. I'll hold off on making an "official' recommendation for deletion in case any editors that can read French are able to find any reviews/sources, but if not, I agree with A MINOTAUR that deletion and then adding a hatnote to The Tie That Binds (novel) to direct readers to Vanessa Duriès would be the best option. Rorshacma (talk) 18:01, 16 August 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 15:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Thomas (Irish footballer)

Bob Thomas (Irish footballer) (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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. The single reference is a match programme, which fails

WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Ireland. UtherSRG (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and
    WP:SPORTBASIC. The absolute minimum criteria of SPORTSBASIC is that "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources". That is not met. Nor, in my own BEFORE searches, can I find anything other than trivial passing mentions in fan blogs (like this scarcely fleeting mention). There's nothing to expand the article beyond the sub-stub we have (or support even basic biographical details like DOB, death, etc). Guliolopez (talk) 20:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A pretty common type of article, a sportsbio with references to either match programs or databases. From my searches, I could not find anything that comes close to SIGCOV. ULPS (talk • contribs) 03:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probable keep I think it's highly probable this is an important historic figure in Irish football. I found one source, although it is The Sun! [18], But winning all those honours means something. I believe this is all about digging deep and finding those offline sources. He clearly seems an important figure with two clubs of Bohemian F.C. and Shelbourne F.C., I did also have a dig at google. But it's a tough one for sure. But if this is deleted then this is really sad for wikipedia. Govvy (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:14, 16 August 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 14:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buike

Buike (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 about a non-notable musician per

WP:NMUSICIAN. He has had no significant accomplishment of tracks of repute. The sources are all promotional/PR Puff pieces. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
https://sunnewsonline.com/with-music-nigerian-entertainer-buike-is-on-to-something/ No Reads like a press release. Not attributed to any author, potentially a paid piece. ? Reliable only according to this brief discussion; this was never analysed to properly establish reliability. Yes Just barely ✘ No
https://schoolnews.info/buike-biography-net-worth/amp/ Yes No No indication of reliability or editorial oversight Yes ✘ No
https://punchng.com/odd-jobs-funded-my-music-career-chibuike-obi/?amp No Basically an interview ? Same as source 1 Yes ✘ No
https://newtelegraphng.com/blossoming-music-career-chibuike-obi-shares-grass-to-grace-story/ No Reads like a press release. Not attributed to any author, potentially a paid piece. ? Yes ✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/07/03/singer-buike-storms-music-scene-with-boss-debut-single No Promotional / paid ? Yes Just barely ✘ No
https://guardian.ng/arts-2/in-boss-buike-speaks-on-self-confidence/ No Likely promotional, see this discussion No Not for promo pieces Yes ✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/07/nigerian-artist-influencer-buike-strides-into-afrobeats/ No Reads like a press release. Not attributed to any author, potentially a paid piece. ? Same as source 1 Yes Just barely ✘ No
https://newsghana.com.gh/nigerian-rapper-and-songwriter-buike-on-to-something-with-music/?amp No Likely a paid piece No Allows submissions from anyone, unclear editorial oversight Yes Just barely ✘ No
https://newsghana.com.gh/nigeria-musician-and-entertainer-buike-lights-up-music-scene-with-boss/ No Likely a paid piece No Allows submissions from anyone, unclear editorial oversight Yes ✘ 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}}.

Source assessment by Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 10:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. None of the available sources are suitable for establishing notability; it's clear that the majority are paid promotional pieces. Accordingly, the subject fails
    WP:BASIC, as we don't have sufficient appropriate sources to establish notability under those guidelines. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 10:27, 22 August 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 speedy delete‎. CSD A11. Liz Read! Talk! 01:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correctional pedagogy

Correctional pedagogy (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)

Seems to be an

WP:DRAFTIFY, but I don't know what someone could do to fix this. Asparagusus (interaction) 13:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. My analysis:
- The article itself is unsourced and badly formatted. An argument of
WP:TNT
could apply.
- I did a google search on "correctional pedagogy". My search results were full of "prison pedagogy" or something similar. However, this article talks about a pedagogy for children with developmental disabilities. The article thus fails notability. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per original. Essay (rather literally: seems to read like a school essay being copy and pasted) regarding phrase with seemingly no significant/real use in the world. A MINOTAUR (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bordering on SPEEDY A11. Unsourced, NN, likely OR if not A11, and horribly written. Quick search yields nothing that could reasonably be used to recreate or improve this article. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: I'll be bold and tag this with A11.
    BangJan1999 01:18, 17 August 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

Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Impa. ✗plicit 14:06, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Impa

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

Having hard time to find sigcov on a quick google search. Article mostly relies on Valnet sources at reception, thus failing

WP:GNG. SyFy Wire is the only valuable source, but only that isn't enough. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 13:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to
Characters of The Legend of Zelda#Impa, per Zx. I'd like to keep this around, but the current sourcing state just isn't doing it, and I don't believe there's enough SIGCOV to buff the article's current state per a search. Ping me if something turns up and I'd be willing to change my vote, though. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Merge per nom, plus creator self admits a lack of coverage. NegativeMP1 (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to
Characters of The Legend of Zelda. Article relies on poor-quality video game content-farming "journalism" that doesn't demonstrate notability. – dudhhr talk contribs 23:12, 20 August 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 List of Sirius XM Radio channels#Former channels. ✗plicit 14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

XM Deportivo

XM Deportivo (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)

Couldn't find many secondary sources about this defunct satellite radio channel in English or Spanish beyond routine coverage. Thus, it fails

WP:GNG. In addition, the article creator was banned for vandalism. Let'srun (talk) 12:44, 15 August 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 E!. ✗plicit 14:07, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E! Entertainment Radio

E! Entertainment 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)

Not enough secondary coverage to meet any of the notability guidelines. Let'srun (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Let'srun (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any material that can be sourced into E!, otherwise delete. A satellite radio channel devoted entirely to running the audio of E!'s television programming does not seem likely to be independently notable of E! proper. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:GNG. I don't think we should merge any of this content given that it's completely unsourced. A redirect seems fine, though. Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 10:05, 22 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Majid Sajadi

AfDs for this article:
Majid Sajadi (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)

BLP of an apparently non notable person. Many of the refs provided have nothing to do with the subject. Likely promotional spam. Moved to draft but moved back without improvement. Mccapra (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just realised there is an open AfD for this from yesterday so there is clearly some gaming going on with recreation. Mccapra (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete Links from the Tehran Times used in the article are about the Sports Minister, not this person. I'm not seeing notability; this is likely PROMO. I can't find mention of this individual in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 13:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unable to understand how come 2 AFD’s are existing at the same time? Also this article was already deleted under A7, so I requested speedy under the same, and that tag got removed by some other user as creator can’t remove it. Also it’s poorly sources and absolute failure of GNG Wikipedian (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was speedy deleted but immediately recreated Mccapra (talk) 13:55, 15 August 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 11:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pemba (red panda)

Pemba (red panda) (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 notable for anything except maybe dying unexpectedly, and even that received minimal news coverage. Groupthink (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Biology. Groupthink (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete appears to be a common red panda name [19]. I was thinking a redirect to the zoo, but there isn't coverage for this animal. Oaktree b (talk) 13:28, 15 August 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. signed, Rosguill talk 03:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nut hand

Nut hand (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 footnotes for most of the content, references to a few websites on etymology or poker glossaries (two out of three seem to be dead or broken anyway). The article doesn't make the case for its topic being

notable, and my BEFORE just shows some mentions in passing. Suggest redirecting to Glossary_of_poker_terms#N. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

—siroχo 05:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Torn between Keeping this article or Redirecting it with a dispute over the value of sources provided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect (or selectively merge) to glossary of poker terms. Doesn't really need more than a paragraph. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Imo it probably needs at least 2 or 3. The nuts, absolute nuts, and current nuts would all need to be covered. A bit about how they are each played and the etymology should also be there given we have plenty of RSes that cover those topics... that's going to be more than a paragraph... Hobit (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Apologies in advance, I don't mean to BLUDGEON, but I'm truly confused by the direction this discussion has gone at this point. I refer to articles like Check (chess) or Checkmate, which are reasonable analogues in chess. Those could be redirected to a glossary, and those rely on guides and even provide a small amount of guidance as is necessary for understanding of the concept. But we recognize these concepts as being notable in their own right such that a mere glossary entry would not do them service. This concept has been a foundational aspect of poker for decades, and is constantly referenced in many forms of literature related to poker. You'll rarely find a poker broadcast without the announcers mentioning the concept. Beyond what folks above have mentioned about in-depth analysis beyond what a guide would offer, the term and concept are both analyzed beyond the game, and beyond poker culture itself, for example:
  • Here's a cultural analysis of the terms influence at poker tables [21]
  • Here's a text that explains the concept in-depth, and then uses the concept to analyze public policy decisions [22]
Even within the game aspect of Poker, there's also substantial disagreement in how to play the nuts -- when to bet or raise, and how much. (just one quick example from proquest [23]) We can provide tertiary coverage of this concept highlighting the disagreement among professionals and those who have analyzed the game, beyond what glossary entry could accomplish. If it seems like I've only provided a handful of sources in this discussion, I apologize, I have yet to conduct an exhaustive search for sources, because it's infeasible given how many reliable sources exist for the subject.
I cannot see how we'd be improving the state of Wikipedia by redirecting this article.
—siroχo 18:19, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a counterpoint - considering I can't access those sources apart from the abstract, where the term is not used at all in either article - a Google Scholar search brings up precious little about the term, about 16 hits when adding the word poker, mostly definitional, excluding one about plywood. Considering the discussion is about whether this should have a stand-alone page, that it's at the moment completely definitional, and fits neatly into a glossary of poker terms, I see no great loss from redirecting this. SportingFlyer T·C 20:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your perspective and explanation, I have a better understanding of the argument now. FYI, you should have access to ProQuest via
WP:TWL —siroχo 07:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps this is a case for
WP:TNT. If you found some good sources, perhaps you could try to rewrite this from scratch. What we have is a mess with three footnotes including "Etymology Dictionary's entry for "nuts" and "The Phrase Finder's entry for "dog's bollocks""." Seriously... a classic case of TNT needed, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I personally would have no issue if someone wants to
WP:HEY the page or recreate a better page if this isn't kept, conditional on better sourcing being found. SportingFlyer T·C 12:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment I don't think comparing this to entries like Check (chess) or Checkmate is useful, because both of those have extended use outside chess, even though their meaning derives from the game. On the other hand, one could argue that the use of "nuts" has an analogue in daily speech - "Have you seen Dave's new car. It's the nuts!" which goes back further than the article's claim of late 20th century (useful link with examples back to 1917 here. So there's an argument that the article could be expanded on that basis, since there is at least some real-world link. Black Kite (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we sure the usage of that phrase in speech has to do with poker and not ... other things? An etymology dictionary talks about it being slang for dual male body parts. SportingFlyer T·C 09:41, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Article may meet GNG per siro's source assessment, but the citations throughout the article are far too sparse. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a reminder, WP:N is the bar for inclusion of a topic. And that is about sources that exist, not ones in the article. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "the topic is notable but the article is far from being in an acceptable state at the moment" precisely what draftifying is for? TompaDompa (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see
WP:TNT. Sometimes starting from scratch is easier than telling folks - go and improve this mess. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:12, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Plenty of discussion, but still no agreement in sight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:12, 15 August 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. Should never have been relisted once much less twice. A merge can be discussed on the talk if needed, but there is clearly not consensus to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Minato Ward elevator accident

2006 Minato Ward elevator accident (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:N gives a presumption of notability, not a guarantee. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 23:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. Meets
    WP:NOT), all of which this article meets, we don't treat topics as encyclopedic or otherwise. If you think the article can be improved, either do so, tag it, or discuss it in the talk page. —siroχo 02:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Japan. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My first instinct was that this is just another random non-notable news story that someone made an article for, and that's probably what it was when the article was created. But the sources provided by Siroxo suggest that this has since had long term effects in Japan and has become a regular subject of study. I wouldn't object to a merge if there's an appropriate target, but I don't see Elevators in Japan being a viable article any time soon. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We could merge the information into List of elevator accidents, because while almost no single accident might be notable enough for expansion into its own article, the whole collection and how safety practices changed in the elevator industry might be worth noting. Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 13:47, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:00, 15 August 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 University of California, Irvine. Liz Read! Talk! 00:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

University of California, Washington Center

University of California, Washington Center (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 refs on the page for many years. Seems unlikely that a university internship programme is notable - I can't find refs that would meet the GNG. JMWt (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:52, 15 August 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. I don't see a consensus here but this is not the type of discussion that I think will be clarified by additional time gained through relistings. The only thing that seems clear to me is that this article needs some serious work. Whether or not it is renamed can be determined on the article talk page. If this article isn't improved, I can see it returning to AFD for a second evaluation. Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States

Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States (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 isn't about an actual movement, and has no sources about a movement. It's a wp:coatrack of arguments against sex offender registries, relying on a lot of wp:synth to string together unrelated references How I could just edit a wiki article (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's on this and similar articles.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 22:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has been raised at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Movement_to_reform_sex_offender_laws_in_the_United_States. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Wp:OR, none of the references were about the subject of the article, each was meant to defend the subject of the articles views instead."

I restored that section and edited it, adding a few scholarly cites (there are A LOT of academic sources out there). Most of what was deleted was not
WP:OR
but citations to independent media articles and while I haven't had a chance to look at all the cites the ones I did supported the text. I took out the word "movement" wherever it appeared except the lead and infobox. There was some (not a lot of) POV in the text and I've tried to tone it down, but if there's a balance issue then I would think opponents' voices should be easy to find.
The remaining question would be what to rename it to. Although @ Denaar suggested ""Sex offender law reform in the United States" perhaps ""Calls for sex offender registry reform in the United States" would be more accurate. I'm open on this one.
To the closing admin As we're at the close-or-relist date, I'd suggest this be relisted on grounds of
WP:HEY
One more comment: looking at the history of these blocked editors I found they and another editor recently blanked a bunch of what looks like good sources on Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States (hat-tip to Denaar for mentioning the history of this article above). I'm worn out from thinking about POV -- grownups can talk about difficult/controversial subjects without being advocates, but for sure there are balance/undue/advocacy issues at play. I'm not going to tinker with that article now, but at some point it should probably be merged with this article. Will see how this discussion goes first, and maybe (maybe) drop a note on the talk page.Oblivy (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and restored the article Effectiveness of sex offender registration policies in the United States to the most recent version prior to the blanking edits, since the edits seemed to be POV-pushing and were made by two accounts banned for sockpuppeting. Vontheri (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sex offender registration as that page is a redirect. Also, I think any article rename has to be a discussion that occurs in the event that this article is Kept. If it is Merged, Redirected or Deleted, than the title won't be terribly important.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:07, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep The article may need some editing for NPOV, but the fact is that such a movement does exist, and whether we like it or not, it is notable and should be described and documented. Vontheri (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But does any sort of organised movement exist as the title suggests? It would need to be TNT'd in order to be remade into an acceptable article. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends how one interprets the word "movement". Just how "organized" does something have to be before it becomes a "movement"? There are high-profile people (at least high-profile within relevant circles) who are calling for such reform, for example Patty Wetterling. I would be fine with renaming the article, but deleting it entirely seems detrimental and unnecessary. Vontheri (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Addition to my previous comment: Also, does the word "movement" necessarily imply "organized movement"? A movement can be a movement without having central organization. Otherwise, the term "organized movement" would be redundant and unnecessary to exist as a term. The title "Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States" only implies that there are people advocating for it, it doesn't necessarily imply organization.
    That said, I am fine with the name being changed as long as it is to a relevant and unbiased name. I just don't think the article should be deleted. Vontheri (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found an organization that should confirm the existence of a "movement": Women Against Registry. Vontheri (talk) 08:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think this movement is significant and notable enough to deserve an article. GeodeRose (talk) 06:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added two more sources to the article, including an opposing view. As noted in the first relisting comment, questions about renaming the article need to wait although I agree with @Vontheri the meaning term movement is fairly expansive.
  • Comment After reading the article completely and more in-depth, I am more convinced than ever that the article should not be deleted and that it really isn't even problematic in its current state. Sure, it can use some work, but so can most Wikipedia articles. Given the topic of the article, of course it is going to focus more on arguments against sex offender registries/laws. There could and should be some more counter-balance given to the article, but it's really not anywhere nearly as radical or as biased as was initially implied. The main issue was the overly-dramatic picture of the toddler, but it has now been removed. Let's all remember that the article was nominated for deletion by a now-banned account, and if you look at the banned accounts (note plural) edit histories, then it doesn't take long to see that this editor was on Wikipedia primarily, if not solely, to make changes to fit their personal political views. Vontheri (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit off-topic at an AfD but proper consideration should be given to whether we need four articles about U.S. SORs. The 7-year old forking argument is a distraction. But something is wrong here, not about POV/undue but it's bad to have things scattered all over the place. Constitutionality article has a long discussion about effectiveness data, for example).
    An argument could be made for merging some of it into Sex offender registries in the United_States but that's already 3500-odd words, of which 800-odd relate to the three forked topics. Effectiveness is 2500 words, constitutionality is 2150, this one is 640. Even with some trimming de-forking is likely to end up at 8000. I could easily see merging effectiveness into this one (subject to post-AfD rename away from "movement") then keeping constitutionality as its own article.
    When this AfD is over I'll put a comment on the talk page to try to get some consensus (not ruling out being bold, but this topic trips some red lights for folks). Oblivy (talk) 04:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm mixed on that one. On the one hand, the four topics do have discernible differences that could merit separate articles, but there is also much overlap. It's a borderline case, but I could see an argument for merging this article with "Effectiveness", although I'm not quite sure what an appropriate title for the article would be in that case. I think "constitutionality" is probably distinct enough that it should remain as its own article, but if it is merged, it would probably make the most sense to merge it into the "movement" article. I think "constitionality" and "effectiveness" are distinct enough from each other that they deserve separate articles; but that creates a bit of a fallacious sort of situation in which "effectiveness" and "movement" could be merged together, and "constitutionality" could be merged with "movement", but "constitutionality" would not be compatible enough to be merged with "effectiveness". All three of those can't be logically satisfied.
    It is unfortunate that so many people can't put their emotional reactions (or "red lights", as you put it) to a topic aside and neutrally and factually work to document phenomena and build an encyclopedia, not only in regards to this topic but in regards to so many varied topics that people have strong feelings about, though this topic is probably one of the most severely affected by emotions in that way. Vontheri (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment. This isn't quite the right place for this discussion, but I wanted to raise it. Hopefully this will end as a keep or no-consensus, and then we can discuss how to put the articles on a good footing (and after they are cleaned up and merged if that’s possible, candidly, I'm going to go work on something else) Oblivy (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I only see two votes for "delete". Unless something radically changes over the next few days, then the article won't be deleted. Once this sock-puppet/POV-warrior initiated time wasting is over, then we can work on actually figuring out a direction forward for the article, as you said. Vontheri (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vontheri’s comments. There is more than enough sources to support this subject. Elttaruuu (talk) 11:13, 17 August 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. This AFD discussion has been relisted twice and still no additional sources have been brought in this conversation to demonstrate notability exists. Liz Read! Talk! 04:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Rennert

Ari Rennert (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 business figure. No

WP:NOTINHERITED. Longhornsg (talk) 06:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you have found sources that represent SIGCOV, please share links to them so other editors can assess them. Being vague and saying sources are out there is not an indication that, as avowed, these sources exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:34, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:24, 15 August 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 Mesoamerican writing systems. Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in the early Americas

Writing in the early Americas (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)

One year old article that seems to be a violation of

WP:REDUNDANTFORK with Mesoamerican writing systems (only region in the Americas with pre-Columbian writing). Poorly sourced as well. Humsorgan (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:22, 15 August 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. ✗plicit 11:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valiollah Khakdan

Valiollah Khakdan (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 article, and very difficult (if not impossible) to find sources for it. I'm not sure it passes

WP:BIO. Losipov (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 15 August 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 with

(non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 21:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Chohong Museum of Finance

Chohong Museum of Finance (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 think this museum is now defunct, and I can't find any mentions of it online in either English or Korean.

talk) 04:30, 15 August 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. First, I appreciate the detailed deletion rationale provided by the nominator. I wish this happened more often. However, the overwhelming consensus here is that this article should be Kept, however it needs a lot of work, perhaps even a full rewrite. This point of view to Keep was strengthened by additional sources found by participants during this discussion which hopefully will address some of the concerns of the nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 04:36, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sans (Undertale)

Sans (Undertale) (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)

Character likely fails standalone notability and falls under

WP:FANCRUFT. Most of the article is unsourced plot summary or reception that can be included on the Undertale
game article, and this article itself is a disorganized mess. Full source analysis:

  • In appearances; Most of the plot summary is completely unsourced. As for the sources that were there, 1 is citing something related to Papyrus, 2 is just fan theories that don't give very much, and 3-8 may be the definition of a
    WP:REFBOMB
    . All it does is demonstrate that Sans got a Mii costume in Smash and his boss fight was remade in Fortnite (odd thing to document in a section meant for official appearances). This REFBOMB takes up a fourth of the articles citations (6/24).
  • In Development, literally nothing is cited to the character himself. 9-12 are for Megalovania.

In Reception:

  • 13 praised all of the boss fights in the game, this is not notability for his boss fight.
  • 14, yeah he's a fan favorite, but this is just a Q&A with the developer Toby Fox with little substance. Doesn't talk about the questions received. Might be
    WP:USERG
    .
  • 15 says nothing except about how he is introduced in the game. This is the most character reception any of the reception sources contain, and it is solely because he is included in a "top video game characters of the decade" list. Nothing about his character is said.
  • 16 is decent reception for his boss fight, but nothing about the character himself.
  • 17-18 are repeats and are just fan art showcases. Same with 19, except 19 is extremely confusing. 21-22 is a poll among a single internet community. These are USERG.
  • 20 is funny but this isn't character reception.
  • 23 may as well be primary.
  • 24 is about Megalovania.

Summary: Out of 24 sources, 6 are part of a ref bomb, 6 more are USERG, and 5 are about Megalovania, which I believe may as well be its own topic due to its history preceding Undertale.

So there is no critical analysis on this character, and

WP:VG/SE
as well as Google Scholar at first glance. Until I removed them, there were also originally sections from The Gamer and Screen Rant in reception, which may have given the illusion of notability despite them being unusable in those situations. There are also numerous grammar mistakes and weird organization problems, such as "the subject of much fan art" and Megalovanias appearance in Taiko no Tatsujin being in the Development section. This article is likely
WP:VGCHAR. NegativeMP1 (talk) 04:26, 15 August 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 List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 04:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anouchka Besch

Anouchka Besch (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)

Redirect to

WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 04:07, 15 August 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! 03:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nayelis López

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

The subject has earned at least one cap for the

WP:GNG JTtheOG (talk) 03:22, 15 August 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! 03:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yelena Cardeso

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

The subject has earned at least one cap for the

WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 03:14, 15 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 07:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Zim Afro T10

2023 Zim Afro T10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor cricket tournament, we don't need articles for every individual season of this tournament, as they don't pass

WP:GNG. Most other T10 events don't have individual season articles (apart from Abu Dhabi T10, which is questionable anyway), as there simply isn't coverage of local T10 tournaments like this one. Regardless of the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zim Afro T10, this season article should be deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I think we should have this article merged into the Zim Afro T10 article, and as more seasons get played, have them integrated into the article. --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 16:52, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails
    talk) 17:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It received considerable coverage in newspapers in Zimbabwe, India and even Bangladesh. ≈ MS Sakib  «TalK» 01:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 02:46, 15 August 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. I closed the previous AFD as Redirect which was later undone. This time, there is more advocacy for Keeping this article. Those seeking to Redirect this article can propose this on the article talk page but this discussion needs to be closed. Liz Read! Talk! 03:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire

AfDs for this article:
Nicholas Hill, 9th Marquess of Downshire (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 was recreated but still doesn't meet

WP:NPOL
due to never sitting in the House of Lords.

The only piece of significant coverage for this individual comes from a local newspaper. A source assessment follows. See also the previous AfD for a review of other sources.

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Pilaz
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
"Marquess of Downshire" in Debrett's Peerage (Debrett's, 2019), pp. 2398–2402 No passing mention ✘ No
"The Marquess of Downshire", The Daily Telegraph, 25 February 2004, accessed 13 February 2023 (subscription required) No passing mention ✘ No
Chris Berry, "Influence from high places to bang the rural drum", The Yorkshire Post, 2 August 2014, accessed 13 February 2023 Yes significant coverage, but only local coverage ? Unknown
"Downshire, 9th Marquess of, (Arthur Francis Nicholas Wills Hill) (born 4 Feb. 1959) company director and landowner" in Who's Who online edition, accessed 13 February 2023 (subscription required) No
WP:RSP
consensus 		No not reliable per 2022 RfC ✘ No
Annabel Sampson, "Why Harrogate is the chic capital of the north", Tatler, 31 March 2021, accessed 13 February 2023 No no mention of the subject ✘ No
Grace Newton, "Clifton Castle: Privately owned stately home in the Yorkshire Dales to open its gardens to the public this weekend", The Yorkshire Post, 10 June 2022, accessed 13 February 2023 No passing mention ✘ 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}}.

Pilaz (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Yes, never a member of the House of Lords, so it's just a question of
    WP:N and the GNG. Agreed that Who's Who does not count towards notability, but the articles in The Yorkshire Post do. The Tatler article does in fact mention the subject, as "the Marquess of Downshire" is this one. Not much there, but it verifies something in the article, which is what references do. Debrett's is independent of the subject and has editors. As I see it, he meets the test of WP:N, which is about verifiability and not importance. If the page is not kept, it is all relevant to Marquess of Downshire, a notable subject, and should be merged there, with a redirect, as the present peer is an integral part of that history. Moonraker (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The problem with Debrett's is the lack of
    WP:SIGCOV: you get a name, title, DOB and descendants on p. 2999, and that's it. This is routine information, hardly "more than a trivial mention". Even The Guardian agrees that this source is "a bible stripped back to its begats. Outsiders can be frustrated by the lack of the colourful narratives that they suspect must be behind a lot of the begetting." Debrett's also cannot count towards the GNG because it is not a secondary source: it's a tertiary source, much like other reference work. Pilaz (talk). 10:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Also,
    WP:TERTIARY source like Debrett's with no SIGCOV enough. Pilaz (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete, one local piece with non-trivial coverage is not enough for GNG. Edit: Redirect. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay you agree then that The Yorkshire Post is non-trivial coverage. It is a regional rather than local newspaper, and the GNG does not distinguish between national, regional, and local sources, so the question is whether it is a reliable source, and it meets all the tests. Pilaz says it is "significant coverage". And then there is Debrett's Peerage, which has biographies as well as genealogy. Pilaz does not dispute its reliability, and I agree, but there is a misunderstanding in the words "passing mention", as Debrett's has nearly half a page about the subject of the article, which is not trivial. NB, what the GNG requires is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and defines "significant coverage" as — "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Moonraker (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem to have access to it, what does Debrett's actually say beyond his genealogy, and is that info non-routine? WP:N requires article subjects also pass NOT. JoelleJay (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay it's a short biography. I would say more, but the copy I have access to is in a library in Oxford and I am in a different place now. Moonraker (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:ATD and plausible search term. Ingratis (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:58, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3rd and final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Moonraker and from what I gather this is an active and notable person, much of the deletionist view is nitpicking about the importance and nature of sources. His activities are better sourced than the political careers of some elected hereditary peers in the House of Lords. Killuminator (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, if we are nitpicking, you can tell us which sources help satisfy the GNG. Unless you are just arguing
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Pilaz (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I could have done that but I'm not going to given your second sentence. Killuminator (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It could have been helpful for the !keep case, because right now the rough consensus is that there's only one source which passes the GNG, which is the Yorkshire Post. Pilaz (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No one seems to disagree that The Yorkshire Post piece is solid, and Moonraker says Debrett's Peerage has a half-page biography of the subject. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:08, 21 August 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. Not a satisfying conclusion for anyone, I might imagine, but a consensus has not formed, and I do not have confidence that any further relisting would lead to one. While there have been substantial concerns raised whether this list can be appropriately scoped, there is not enough support to form a consensus for outright deletion. I would very much encourage the participants here to discuss ways to address the concerns many editors raised during the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamist terrorist attacks

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

This is a POV fork of

talk 09:34, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Information icon Note that List of right-wing terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Information icon Note that List of left-wing terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

Information icon Note that List of thwarted Islamic terrorist attacks also has a discussion in Articles for Deletion.

I didn't realize I voted twice here. Conyo14 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Dunamo. 208.87.236.201 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked IP. TarnishedPathtalk 16:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete/ Redirect: At a bare minimum, this article needs

WP:TNT. It has gone off the rails by including incidents that were not clearly motivated by religious extremism.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

OK, I didn't intend to !vote twice, but my basic views on this are still the same.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 13:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I presumed you didn't mean it. I'd suggest you strike one of your votes.
talk 13:44, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a very contentious topic. Consensus appears to be leaning KEEP at the moment. Relisting to try and generate more solid consensus and discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   ArcAngel   (talk) 02:45, 15 August 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. ✗plicit 02:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ninja of Heisei

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

Sources are from 2017, when subject was arrested. No newer sources (unless someone can find in Japanese) about a conviction, so not sure this passes

WP:BLP1E. Longhornsg (talk) 01:51, 15 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duran Duran's charity concert at Villa Park 1983

AfDs for this article:
Duran Duran's charity concert at Villa Park 1983 (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)

It's just a article detailing a concert that happened in villa park. seems fan made, no real substance, not really a

WP:N thing. New3400 (talk) 01:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing found in Gnews or Gnewspapers. There might perhaps be coverage in British newspapers at the time, my Gnewspapers seems to be limited to American/Canadian sources. I'll keep looking. Oaktree b (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Well, it happened [38] but those are photos of the event from a newspaper. This has a little info [39], one of the seven notable events at the area [40], [41] coverage from the football club about the event. Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And this [42] Oaktree b (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets both
    WP:EVENT. There's coverage across 4 decades. Book published by Hachette from a couple years ago [43] with several pages of sigcov. Birmingham Mail had coverage ~30 years after [44], Birmingham Post had a small amount of coverage 22 years after [45]. —siroχo 02:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep
    WP:EVENT. Re "article detailing a concert that happened in villa park" well, yeah, that's what it's meant to do. I've never really understood the argument "fan made" - if you have no interest in a subject matter, why bother creating an article? — Maile (talk) 13:11, 15 August 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. Procedural Keep, no deletion rationale provided by nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 07:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zakaria Silini

Zakaria Silini (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)

Reason

talk) 01:03, 15 August 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline McGowan

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

Does not meet any

WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun (talk) 00:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per the nomination. Fails
    WP:BLP1E as she also gained some fame from her Miss America 2012 competition. Of course, the majority of the references are passing mentions, although I noticed 2, 3, 11, 13, and 15 are not. After a quick search I did find some interesting things including her... staring down the scope of a .50 caliber sniper rifle, which is actually on Commons, funny enough. IncompA 03:42, 15 August 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 00:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Kofoed

Kylie Kofoed (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 fails

WP:GNG as a former beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun (talk) 00:19, 15 August 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. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Guinwa Zeineddine

Guinwa Zeineddine (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 lack of

WP:SIGCOV to meet the GNG for this former beauty pageant contestant. Let'srun (talk) 00:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsure of the quality of these sources: [46] and [47]. Second is trivial coverage; not seeing GNG or BLP as being met. Oaktree b (talk) 13:25, 15 August 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. ✗plicit 00:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Douma

AfDs for this article:
Linda Douma (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)

Lacks sustained

WP:BIO1E Let'srun (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Beauty pageants, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would encourage AFD nominators to use plain English rather than cryptic "Lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV .. Falls into WP:BIO1E", etc.
    I challenge both reasons. From a few-second search through Google books, I get two top hits [48] [49], which are two recent books published by
    UBC Press. Both have a chapter on Linda Douma, claiming that her win of Miss Canada and her activities afterwards were significant contributions to the Canadian pageant title and the feminism movement. Materialscientist (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - Shoutout to Materialscientist for finding these sources. This type of sustained coverage from reliable sources proves the long-term impact she had. If this is the kind of coverage she has received just in the past three years, I can only imagine how much there is overall, especially in contemporary sources. Of course, this was all already laid out in the first nomination not even one year ago. JTtheOG (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hate to do the standard "per x" thing response, but in this case I have to !vote like that. Thank you to Materialscientist for showing that she does indeed have good coverage. She clearly has had an impact on feminism in Canada as evidenced by the sustained coverage in multiple books. ULPS (talk • contribs) 17:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided above demonstrate notability based on long-term impact.
    Talkback) 20:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Thanks to the sources found by Materialscientist. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:52, 19 August 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_August_15&oldid=1171769814"