Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 30

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 23:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gobbe

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:27, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is just a blatant advertisement. It’s not blatant enough for g11 but it’s still pretty blatant. As I’ve said before we are not SoundCloud. This person has no notability and has not been notable in the past. Nagol0929 (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I could not find any secondary coverage outside of a passing mention in an interview with someone else. Out of the cited sources, I think only the InTheMix review could contribute to notability, so we're plainly failing
  WP:GNG. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  ^{• whaddya want? •} 20:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Not a notable, clearly fails GNG. Poor coverage and lack of reliable source. Ekdalian (talk) 14:38, 4 September 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 Godzilla (franchise)#Filmography. ✗plicit 04:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kamacuras

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

)

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

While a recurring Kaiju in the Godzilla series and generally notable in universe, I can't find much more Kamacuras beyond listicles, passing mentions, and the like. The article itself is all plot, and unlike a lot of other Godzilla Kaiju, there isn't much developmental info that would warrant the article sticking around either. I just don't think there's enough to justify the article's existence separately from anything else. An AtD could be a redirect to Son of Godzilla, given that it seems to be where Kamacuras are most notable, but if anyone has a better suggestion, or found sources that may justify the article's existence that I may have missed in my BEFORE, then feel free to suggest or mention it. I'd like to keep this around, but as it stands, I don't think Kamacuras has much to stand on. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. Pokelego999 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Not seeing how the article even tries to estabilish notability, and my BEFORE just gave few mentions in passing. Ping me if SIGCOV coverage that goes beyond plot summary is found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you recommend a Redirect or Merge, please supply the target article you are proposing this article be directed to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:SIGCOV to pass our guidelines. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to Godzilla (franchise)#Filmography - No sources really showing that they're particularly notable, and since they have never really been the "featured" kaiju of a movie, always just appearing in films with an ensemble of monsters or as stock footage/cameos, there's not really a single movie that would serve as a great target for a redirect. The film list for the franchise, which already includes a column showing which monsters appeared in each film, would thus be the best target, as anyone searching for the monster would be redirected straight to a list where they can easily see their appearances. Rorshacma (talk) 06:12, 5 September 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!} 23:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Liberal Party (2003)

Mexican Liberal Party (2003) (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 minor Mexican political party that existed for about a year (2002-2003) and got only 0,42% of the vote in the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Mexico. Pichpich (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Party received over 100,000 votes in a national election, which IMO makes it notable. Coverage also to be found in other sources.[1][2][3] Cheers, Number 57 11:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Although i agree with you, i think every political party deserves recognition as long as it has notable info!, cheers too you! 52Timer (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - That means you would also have too include a few more Mexican political parties into this discussion, why delete this one if it is similar to other lost Political parties like for example: “México Posible 2002-2003” the article has much less than this one so it wouldn’t be fair deleting this one. Instead this article should be considered a stub or more rework, Furthermore. This seems like your typical stub of political parties and 90% of this article comes from the Spanish Wikipedia and fully corrected and worked with actual sources! 52Timer (talk) 00:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review sources found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This one passes
  WP:GNG through the sources provided by Number_57, despite the short time the party existed. User:Let'srun 21:45, 6 September 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. The official closure is "No consensus". But I can see the possibility, in the future, of an editor Merging or Redirecting this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BentallGreenOak

BentallGreenOak (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 investment company, seems to be affiliated with SunLife, which could perhaps be a merge target. I can only find PR pieces about them. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New York. Skynxnex (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - see:
  • Ex-M.Stanley bankers launch new property venture (Reuters)
  • The Bengal GreenOak merger was ‘like two puzzle pieces coming together” (PERE)
    • PERE covers the primary private equity real estate world with a circulation of 35,000. It's not dependent on ads or press releases; subscriptions cost $3000+

These provide substantial explanations of the company's business.

BentallGreenOak is huge - they manage $47 billion worth of real estate.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only coverage are
  WP:ROUTINE press releases and the like. Andre🚐 04:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Neither of those 2 articles are press releases -- why did you say that?

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Read ROUTINE, it includes articles that are just press announcements of mergers and the like. Andre🚐 21:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've read ROUTINE. I disagree with your assessment. These provide in-depth explanations of the company's activities.

  Why do you really want to get rid of this article?

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you see how the the reuters article starts with a location, date, source (e.g. LONDON, Aug 2 (Reuters))? That's how you know its PR. Here's the announcement from Tetragon and you can see the Reuters article regurgitates it - fails ORGIND. The Pere article though is good enough to meet NCORP criteria as it contains in-depth opinion/analysis. On another read-through, no, the author uses a technique of summarising what has been said which was made clear by the included quotes later in the article.
  HighKing⁺⁺ 20:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Its an enormous firm that do direct commercial lending across the UK and Ireland for real estate transactions. Press Up Entertainment and Paddy McKillen among the clients Here. Its among the Top 50 lenders into property in Europe, almost all of the rest have a Wikipedia page. [4]Financefactz (talk) 11:11, 11 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!} 23:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete there are several concerns regarding its notability and compliance with Wikipedia's standards:

General Notability: Wikipedia's general notability guideline states that a topic is presumed to be suitable for a standalone article if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Although the article mentions various acquisitions and investments made by BGO, and the above editors indicated some possible reliable sources it does not provide enough significant independent and secondary sources to establish its notability beyond basic facts. --VertyBerty (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Was Sun Life Financial the possible Merge target you had in mind Oaktree b?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was yes. Oaktree b (talk) 19:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, right now looking like a No Consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  HighKing⁺⁺ 20:52, 6 September 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 is not the best forum for debating the basis for this list, it's to consider whether or not this article should be kept and on that note, I see no consensus. A future rename or complete rewrite can be considered on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of books considered the best

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

)

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

This article is not notable, probably used for advertisement of the books. Wikipedia is not for deciding which book is best. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets
  WP:PROMO. Perhaps move to List of novels considered the best considering the topic. —siroχo 18:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I think it's relevant to mention that

  List of novels considered the greatest was actually deleted at AfD last July (link). Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I didn't participate there, but from the comments it appears that article had substantial problems that this one does not share. —siroχo 21:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd note that
  List of films considered the best has been kept seven times, but it's structured quite differently, but just because those rankings exist doesn't mean this article meets NLIST as it is. Reywas92^Talk 18:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I do like this plan, I think it could be a solid article that would improve the state of all the articles you're mentioning, including this one. As it's too complex an outcome for AfD I will stick with my above !vote, but would support this proposal in a discussion (whether after a BOLD attempt, or as a proposal) —siroχo 21:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Despite the title, this is not a list of books considered the best. By its very construction (The books listed here are included on at least three separate "best/greatest of all time" lists from different publications, as chosen by their editorial staffs/authors.), it is a list of books considered among the best. I think it's highly dubious if that's a valid way of constructing the list in the first place, and it certainly shouldn't be at this title. Contrast
  list of films considered the best, where each entry actually has been deemed the best (i.e. #1) by a notable poll. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of novels considered the greatest from last year. TompaDompa (talk) 03:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment This exact debate has been had like 10 times about
  List of films considered the best, I don't see why the same reasonings wouldn't apply to books.★Trekker (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If they were constructed the same way, I would agree. But they are not, they are constructed in completely different ways as outlined above. TompaDompa (talk) 18:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me that seems like a good argument for why this article needs major changes, not deletion, unless we're talking a
      DYNAMITE case.★Trekker (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Well, maybe. But if we want a list of the same kind as
        Modern Library 100 Best Novels (3) is a ranked poll ranked but not a poll, The Daily Telegraph's 100 Novels Everyone Should Read (4) is ranked but not a poll, and The Guardian's 100 Best Novels Written in English (5) is neither ranked nor a poll. That would leave us with only a single entry, the rest of the list needing to be scrapped. That is pretty much indistinguishable from starting over from scratch. TompaDompa (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Amended. TompaDompa (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
        ]

        Keep in mind that books are different than films. Due to both the quantity of books produced in relation to films, as well as less need for demonstration of technical expertise in the use of tools, it's a lot harder to find objective criteria for the quality of books. As such, summarizing across secondary sources based on lists of 100 is probably a better tertiary analysis than to pick the top 1 from several secondary sources, when it comes to books.

        While I think Reywas92's plan is possibly the best path forward after AFD, a subtle rename here would solve the issues. List of books considered among the best might work. —siroχo 23:27, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        As such, summarizing across secondary sources based on lists of 100 is probably a better tertiary analysis than to pick the top 1 from several secondary sources, when it comes to books. Again, maybe. It's certainly more of an

        WP:ANALYSIS, and I don't mean that as a positive. And when the sources are mostly not polls but what amounts to opinion pieces, it gets even more dubious—we're back to the issues that led to the previous discussion ending with the article being deleted. Are we suggesting that Lev Grossman (1), Richard Lacayo (1), Robert McCrum (5), Dick Meyer (2), and unnamed Telegraph staff (4) are that authoritative sources on this topic? TompaDompa (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

        ]

        I just realized that it's worse than I thought.

        Modern Library 100 Best Novels (3) is not one list but two—one drawn up by the editorial board of Modern Library (with Ulysses at #1) and one with 217,520 votes cast (with Atlas Shrugged at #1)—and the article uses the former (as evidenced by Sons and Lovers being noted in the article as appearing on the list when it only appears on the board's list). So we actually have 0 ranked polls in use here, not 1. And I suppose we'll add unnamed people at the editorial board of Modern Library (named by The New York Times here: Christopher Cerf, Gore Vidal, Daniel J. Boorstin, Shelby Foote, Vartan Gregorian, A. S. Byatt, Edmund Morris, John Richardson, Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and William Styron) to the list of sources we are apparently saying are sufficiently authoritative to base this list on. TompaDompa (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC) Amended. TompaDompa (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

        ]

        Just to be clear regarding my thoughts, I don't mean original research, perhaps "tertiary analysis" is borrowing the wrong turn of phrase from the wrong discipline, I hope it's clear that I don't mean all-caps

        WP:ANALYSIS. By "tertiary analysis" what I mean is summarizing and consolidating secondary sources. —siroχo 01:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

        ]

        I figured you didn't mean it that way, but I think it qualifies. This article is not really summarizing sources on which books are the best (even disregarding the difference between novels and books), it's taking a handful of opinions, cross-referencing them, and listing the overlap as though it were some kind of critical consensus. The underlying method could conceivably be used to construct a list that meaningfully reflects the overall consensus, but it would require a way larger number of sources, a way more representative set of sources (the

        WP:Original research territory. TompaDompa (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

        ]

• Comment. If kept, tag with {{globalize}}, as this is a List of English-languageb ooks considered the best by English readers. Such a list would look different if we added input from French, German, Chinese, Japanese and so on sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I did not mean for this to be an advertisement of certain books. I was merely trying to create a page for novels in the vein of

List of games considered the best which uses critical consensus instead of one persons opinion. Pyraminxsolver (talk) 06:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep and rename List of novels considered among the 100 best. There is no single "best", just top 100, but they are considered as a group, satisfying NLIST. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be factual, it is a List of novels on "100 best books" lists. Lamona (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article for
  Modern Library 100 Best Novels states at the beginning "Modern Library's 100 Best Novels is a 1998 list of the best English-language novels published during the 20th century, as selected by Modern Library from among 400 novels published by Random House, which owns Modern Library." So that's not independent. A publishing company tells you that the best 100 books you should buy are all published by them. Anyway, this list is pointless. Just listing which potentially bias sources put something on their top 100 book list, has no purpose here. To make content to publish, someone was told to make a list of 100 books, and they most likely never read most of them themselves, just looked up information elsewhere. Dream Focus 18:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep and rename to List of English novels considered the best. The lists include only novels and only those in English. The title should accurately reflect that. Longhornsg (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, you updated it and added years up to "2015". Should we consider it a list limited to those specific years? ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:16, 29 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!} 23:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just create lists for each individual poll if they're that notable, we don't really need a weird SYNTH-y page that arbitrarily chooses five polls to decide its entries. AryKun (talk) 15:18, 2 September 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.

Pidge (company)

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Teemu.cod (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Within the article, the sources seem to all by passing mentions or
  WP:PRIMARY, with the exception of Inc42. My own research did not turn up significant secondary coverage, with the majority of articles appearing to be press releases. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:39, 31 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 00:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Judd

Bruce Judd (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 seem to pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Qcne (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Lists. The Night Watch (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not really sure where the whole "needs rewriting" thing comes from -
  MOS:PLOT states that "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations". I feel there is a misunderstanding of what exactly requires sourcing and what doesn't. The page could stand to be expanded with more context, but it's not so barren of sources to fall under GAMECRUFT. Obviously, people are welcome to add more context, I just wanted to start a page for what (has been raised in numerous deletion discussions) is a very clearly notable cast of characters that has been discussed as a group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Didn't this list get started like within the month? Honestly, kind of surprised this got put into AfD so soon. Conyo14 (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the bigger issue is that it's 99% regurgitated plot points and 1% out-of-universe commentary. Sergecross73 msg me 20:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure why you're quoting

  MOS:PLOT when this is a list of characters that should include information on their conception, design, and reception and not just a plot summary. Although there are elements of the plot that could be included on the page and do not require inline citations, the article and its characters are excessively based upon said plot sourcing and there is still not an adequate amount of material that I could find on the game's characters as a whole. Just mentions in reviews all basically saying that the characters were "all well written and very unique" is not enough material to satisfy NLIST, because there is no other significant material to work with. If several scholarly sources discussing the characters of Undertale and Deltarune does come up, that would be enough to satisfy NLIST. But at the moment, I'm just not seeing it. The Night Watch (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I added some sources that would hopefully address the issue, though I am all but certain there's more out there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but give the page time to improve. I agree with User:Zxcvbnm — it's "a very clearly notable cast of characters that has been discussed as a group"; it's just that this list page is quite new (it's literally only about a month old) and needs a little bit of time to expand its bibliography and descriptions (instead of being insta-deleted). Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'll be honest, I'm slightly iffy about the Deltarune half of the article. But Undertale's end has several papers with multiple citations discussing them on Google Scholar here. And that's coming from looking at the papers themselves. I will openly state these sources should have been worked in *before* the article was pushed out like this, but at the same time there's at least clear discussion too and the Sans (Undertale) AfD clearly demonstrated there is interest in a list of characters for this game.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  inquire within) 03:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: At least for the time being. The sources, while far from ideal, are at the very least adequate to meet the GNG, and the article is new. As such I would wait at least a short while to
  inquire within) 03:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Speedy keep. This article was made fairly recently and many sources have been found on the subject. It should have time to improve before it's put up for deletion. Pokelego999 (talk) 03:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Characters of X are routinely permitted when X is a notable media franchise with, well, characters. Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Creator keep I can't say I understand the rationale behind the nomination, as it suggests that plot summary needs to be sourced when, by Wikipedia policy, it does not. And if it wasn't clear before, it is quite obvious now that sources do discuss the characters both individually and as a group, making the rationale that it does not pass
  WP:LISTN soundly refuted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:11, 31 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.

Sonny Zulu

Sonny Zulu (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 business person. Apart from being the CEO of a recognized bank, they're no

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Africa. Jamiebuba (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a relatively standard
  WP:NOTLINKEDIN. The main depth in the article is entirely about awards received by a business, notability of the subject is not established. If sources are found, this article requires TNT. —siroχo 22:45, 30 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. Hopefully, sources can be added to this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

En pièces détachées

En pièces détachées (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and France. UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lots of references in the corresponding French article at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_pi%C3%A8ces_d%C3%A9tach%C3%A9es Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A Google Books search turns up many paragraphs of coverage in books about Hallyday and French rock. I can also find a number of in-depth contemporary reviews in major newspapers/magazines which suggest notability. Appears to meet
  WP:NALBUM. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:56, 5 September 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!} 19:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EICASLAB

EICASLAB (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. No reference seems to pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mathematics, Computing, and Software. UtherSRG (talk) 17:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I could not find any secondary coverage, with the sourcing entirely passing mentions or primary. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I could find only a few low-citation works on this in Google Scholar, which seem to be associated with the project developers rather than independent. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 2 September 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!} 19:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Conference Champions

Eastern Conference Champions (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, California, and Pennsylvania. UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets
  WP:MUSIC; there are a substantial number of independent sources out there, e.g., [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Chubbles (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as Paste Magazine, IGN, AllMusic bio as shown above. Also found an AllMusic album review here. Overall there is enough for
  WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:59, 31 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 Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachelle Epanga

Rachelle Epanga (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. JTtheOG (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is the 135th women's footballer article nominated for AfD by this user in the 41 days since the start of the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup on 20 July 2023, accounting for 95.7% of their AfD nominations in that span. At this rate of approximately 3.3 articles nominated per day, a user could nominate every international women's footballer article currently on Wikipedia in approximately 7 years and 4 months. Good luck! -75.164.167.40 (talk) 19:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 17:00, 3 September 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 Democratic Republic of the Congo women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merveille Mbemba

Merveille Mbemba (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. JTtheOG (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 16:59, 3 September 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.

Elizabeth Elizah

Elizabeth Elizah (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Oceania. JTtheOG (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 16:58, 3 September 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!} 19:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belma Sabotic

Belma Sabotic (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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 16:55, 3 September 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Christensen (American football)

Erik Christensen (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes
  top three: (1) (part 1/part 2), (2) this, and (3) this. Also lots of further coverage with varying levels of depth, including (4) this, (5) this, (6) this, (7) this, (8) this, (9) this, (10) this, and (11) this. Cbl62 (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  That works. Thank you for your efforts; I'll close the nomination. CohenTheBohemian (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New Jersey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes
  WP:GNG per Cbl62. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The coverage cited above establishes that the notability standard is satisfied, with kudos to Cbl62. Alansohn (talk) 02:53, 31 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 Bit.Trip. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commander Video

Commander Video (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, 2 sourced article. Fails WP:GNG. Summerslam2022 (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not sure what this was... Gnews only brings up Boko Haram and stuff about a new pet at the White House. Odd. Nothing for GNG Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:SPA, I honestly would not be surprised if this article was initially created as part of the attempted viral marketing campaign. Rorshacma (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Advertising. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bit.Trip - not sure this is a major enough character, or ARG, for an article. However, it is a believable search term. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bit.Trip. Definitely a likely search term as the two topics of Commander Video and Bit.Trip go hand-in-hand as the mascot of the franchise respectively. Commander Video has also appeared in other media as a stand-in representing Bit.Trip so a redirect would be logical here. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to

Tarantula^TM (speak with me) (my legacy) 21:12, 4 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UCL University Preparatory Certificate

UCL University Preparatory Certificate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and United Kingdom. Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article has existed since 2011, but at no time has it had refs other than UCL. If there are references that can support notability, best path might be to copy the content to offline, let it be deleted, and then start fresh, restoring only that content that can be supported by independent, reliable source references (see
  WP:42). David notMD (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment there may be some mileage for an article on the general concept of these preparatory courses, as UCL are not the only people in the business. We already have INTO University Partnerships, which is about a commercial organisation that partners with universities to provide what I think is a similar service. Elemimele (talk) 16:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The general article for these is Foundation Programme. This is currently a rather short article but could be expanded. Robminchin (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That article is currently talking about a totally different course. It's a highly problematic title as there are Foundation Programmes for almost everything, at every level. You're right it could be generalised, but it runs the risk of becoming too general or turning into a dictionary definition. Elemimele (talk) 11:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (COI as alumni); fails
  WP:GNG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:59, 30 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. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvin Lo (businessman) (2nd nomination) just closed at the beginning of August and I doubt that much has changed in the past few weeks. Also, the accusatory nomination statement didn't help. I recommend that the nominator move on, at least for a few months. Maybe even help improve the article, huh? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Lo

Calvin Lo (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)

Calvin Lo has been blocked multiple times on Wikipedia for undisclosed paid abuse, finally an extended user:Cunard creates his page by

]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

This looks like an attack AfD directed at Cunard A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard did not edit this article; he just moved the existing article to a different title.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)}, A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

problem solving 20:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep No, he's notable. Appears to not be what the article claims he is/glosses over it. He's apparently tried to fudge his way onto a billionaire's list, for example [17]. Article given here has a brief mention, but I think he's more notable as an, um, "Forbes list enthusiast" and his attempts get on the list, then for anything else. I won't wade into the discussion of how rich or not rich he is or pretends to be, but there's a story here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Hong Kong, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and procedural close; this article has already been closed as keep in 2 AFDs earlier this year, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Calvin_Lo_(businessman)_(2nd_nomination) which closed earlier this month. - Indefensible (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Indefensible’s comment and in reaction to the troubled nomination statement above. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 22:30, 30 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:11, 6 September 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)

The result of the previous AfD for this article was to merge relevant information into the article on governance without government. I have now done so, but still feel like the "Zero world government" article (now a redirect) should be deleted.

As before,

Per all this, I don't think merging and redirecting was sufficient, as the concept still lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and has no clear connection with its redirect target. As such, I still think the article should be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Grnrchst (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like a failed attempt at creating a redirect. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. AryKun (talk) 15:27, 2 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ITV Specials

ITV Specials (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 is an

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing found about the topic as a group, except the usual databases and sites that mirror Wikipedia. Article has extremely poor sourcing, with almost all sources to a single special. List is too long to navigate easily; might be ok as a category but not like this. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I am not seeing anything to suggest that what is included here is ever routinely grouped together. Dunarc (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't think this is a banner, branding, or grouping that is actually used by anybody, much less ITV itself. (It also arbitrarily suggests that there were no specials of any kind on ITV before 2000, which is highly unlikely—if not outright inaccurate—for a network that has existed since 1955.) On top of that, is there any real reason why the six main "types" or "series" of music specials aired on ITV are only listed here, and not in the list of television programmes broadcast by ITV? WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:31, 3 September 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!} 19:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Freda Ayisi

Freda Ayisi (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)

Was deleted back in 2020 for failing

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Ghana. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets GNG and SPORTBASIC with significant coverage in the Islington Gazette and Athletic sources. gobonobo ^{+ c} 07:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Athletic article has few sentences specifically on Ayisi and heavily pads the article with quotes from her/stuff that has nothing to do with her. Dougal18 (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 16:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep‎. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Nintendo characters

Lists of Nintendo characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This is a rather bizarre relic from an earlier time in Wikipedia's life, but I feel it's outlived it's lifespan. While at one time the list of, well, lists was far more expansive, things have gradually cut down over time. Additionally we also have categories and an organized template that provide the exact same function. It also ends up a weird outlier: we don't do this for any other franchise (for example there's not a Lists of Square Enix characters)

I don't see sunsetting this as a controversial take. Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: To better clarify, my argument is the list itself is so out of the way while at the same time specialized, that it doesn't work as either a navigation directory or disambiguation unlike other List of Lists articles, and instead add another layer of bookkeeping it has clearly failed at given how out of date it is at the time of this AfD.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list does not serve a good navigational purpose or meet LISTN. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have realized that there is a navigational purpose for this list. Keep. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems like a valid navigational list for characters from Nintendo franchises. OTHERSTUFF(doesn't)EXIST is not an argument for the deletion of a page, and I feel like a list of lists for Square Enix characters wouldn't be a bad idea either. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Over the template that's on each of those pages though Zx? I mean keep in mind I didn't notice this list even existed until I started working on character lists. It's a bit out of sight, out of mind. And not even up to date.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  IMO, lists and templates can exist alongside each other. One does not remove the need for the other. You can't search for a template. Lists of lists are a standard thing, nothing to see here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep per criterion 3: no accurate deletion rationale presented. See WP:Lists of lists. Jclemens (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Appears to be a pretty valid "List of Lists" for navigational purposes. Rorshacma (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's long enough that I feel it's useful for navigational purposes, coexisting with the template already on some of those pages - especially since some of the lists aren't on that template but are in the list of lists article (such as Characters of Fire Emblem Fates and the lists for Pokemon characters in every generation [instead of just in the series as a whole]). Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 18:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Suntooooth: yeah I fixed it up after this clearly seemed to be snowballing. I can't withdraw but I figured if it was going to stick around may as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Perfectly valid navigation list. Dream Focus 20:08, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreeing with editors on this list of lists, but mainly with Jclemens in that the nom didn't provide proper rationale. My guess is that it's
  WP:NLIST? Regardless, it provides useful navigation to the many lists of Nintendo-centric characters. Conyo14 (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, this appears to be a useful list of lists. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:32, 2 September 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.

Chicago Center for Urban Life and Culture

Chicago Center for Urban Life and Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Doesn't meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Illinois. Wikishovel (talk) 10:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete This is all I see [20], a brief mention. Oaktree b (talk) 17:25, 30 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 Animal Crossing. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Villager (Animal Crossing)

Villager (Animal Crossing) (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 relies entirely on short quips and list entries, primarily due to their role in