Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 December 18

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 17 December 19 >

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 redirect‎ to List of New Caledonia international footballers. Daniel (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caü Poanoui

Caü Poanoui (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. He appears to have possibly represented France in teqball in 2019. Even if it is the same person, there is nothing more than passing mentions about the event. JTtheOG (talk) 23:43, 18 December 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. Daniel (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lala Dicko

Lala Dicko (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, a Malian women's footballer, has not received enough coverage to meet

WP:SPORTCRIT. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2014, 2016, 2018, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:34, 18 December 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 Armenia women's international footballers. Daniel (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Sakhinova

Maria Sakhinova (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. Everything that came up in my searches were passing mentions in squad lists and match reports (2018, 2021, 2023, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 23:22, 18 December 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. The keep arguments hinge on sources currently in the article - that have been convincingly challenged here - and the supposition that this company's profile is such that more coverage will be forthcoming, which is an IAR argument that hasn't gotten enough support to achieve consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cigniti Technologies

Cigniti Technologies (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 of a company that fails

WP:CORPDEPTH. CNMall41 (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:CORPDEPTH applies and this doesn't meet it. The reference you show is a press release. Are you saying that a press release meets the requirements of ORGCRIT to show notability? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Press releases do not meet the requirements of ORGCRIT to show notability, of course. They can, however, establish verifiability for a certain status or event they describe, as is the case here. This, in turn, adds to other references in establishing notability. The assessment covered by the press release is one recognized by Big Four members, which suggests it isn't some mail-order prize as is often the case. As for being publicly traded on a major exchange,
WP:LISTED tells us that sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, which was my point: we are pretty much guaranteed to get more news coverage for this company, and it seems wasteful to delete and recreate the article based on the ebb and flow of news about it. Owen× ☎ 20:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Verification of something on a page and establishing notability are not the same. We are in agreement that press releases do not establish notability so it doesn't matter if there are 10,000 of them about this company, they would not count. LISTED also says "consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case" (about being notable for being publicly traded). So yes, they may have coverage in the future meeting ORGCRIT, but they do not currently. The argument you seem to be making is that it is
WP:TOOSOON. And, I agree with your argument. But we do not keep pages around in hopes that they will eventually meet notability guidelines. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:18, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you, CNMall41, but I can assure you that after 19 years on the project, I do not need a lecture about the difference between verifiability and notability, especially seeing as I highlighted the difference myself in my reply to you. My point, which I thought was spelled out clearly enough, is that I believe being recognized in an international assessment such as the IDC MarketScape as a global leader is, ipso facto, evidence of notability. There is no WP:TOOSOON involved; the report came out two weeks ago.
We can certainly debate how significant or in-depth coverage of this report was. I believe the report, along with ongoing coverage in leading media, is enough to pass our usual threshold of notability. But as I pointed out re: WP:LISTED, if this article is deleted, we'll simply end up here again in AfD/Cigniti Technologies (2nd nomination) the next time the company receives global recognition or wins an international award, which I don't consider to be a productive use of our editorial time on the project. WP:LISTED doesn't tell us that a company traded on a major exchange is automatically notable, but it does warn us that removing articles about such companies is usually a waste of time. I find your approach of delete-now-and-predictably-recreate-when-more-notable to be counterproductive. Owen× ☎ 12:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why the contentiousness. You may not agree with my rationale for deletion, but I will assume you understand
WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, why would we wind up at a second deletion discussion? Once the company is notable under Wikipedia guidelines (assuming it does become notable), there should be no need for another discussion. At this point, we can agree to disagree but I have never seen a company kept at AfD with the bar this page sets. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see any argument from authority in my reply to you. What I said was that after 19 years of working on the project, you can safely assume I know the difference between verifiability and notability, especially after I mentioned the difference myself. You talking down to me as if this were my first AfD seems out of place.
As for your question, why would we wind up at a second deletion discussion?, the answer is likely: because you'll nominate it again. Your personal standards of notability, CNMall41, seem distinctly higher than the general norm. And since coverage of publicly listed companies keeps flowing, it is a safe bet that this article will get recreated sooner or later, and we'll have the pleasure of going through this all over again.
I'm not sure what you mean by, we can agree to disagree. I'm here to discuss and--with any luck--reach a consensus. I am not here to state my unwavering opinion, dig my heels in, and parry every opposing view by quoting a wikipolicy of varrying relevance. Tell me, CNMall41, when was the last time you changed your !vote on an AfD after seeing the views of other participants, or worked to reach some kind of compromise? Owen× ☎ 13:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how I am talking down to you so sorry you feel that way. If that is the case, I would encourage you to take concerns to ANI as I do not want to be someone who violates guidelines in order to keep others from enjoying Wikipedia. As far as changing my !vote(s) (which I have no idea what that has to do with the notability of this company), I will do you one better. I actually requested deletion of pages I created early on in my editing here, after gaining experience and learning where the community leans on interpretation of
WP:NCORP. So, I am not "quoting a wikipolicy of varrying relevance" and instead pointing to the relevant guidelines as the reasoning for my deletion recommendation as I have learned through many AfD discussions on companies. As far as me recommending it for deletion a second time, I still do not understand your reasoning. Again, if it eventually becomes notable as you are saying, then there would be no reason for a second AfD (it would be disruptive in fact). I am discussing the current notability in the current discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. No number of shallow, churnalist articles can add up to CORPDEPTH.
JoelleJay (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with OwenX. The company is traded on a major exchanges of India. And it has news coverage from reliable news outlets. B-Factor (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @
WP:ORGCRIT. Can you point out which references meet that criteria? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: per nom. Fails
    WP:CORPDEPTH. Charlie (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Hi, Dalai60, I realize you are the article creator with only a handful of edits to Wikipedia so wanted to point out the relevant guideline for notability. Companies listed on major stock exchanges are not inherently notable. They must have significant coverage that meets
WP:THREE you believe meets that criteria? --CNMall41 (talk) 02:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Hmmm, Thanks for the !vote. I will pose the same question to you I asked the page creator since you have very few edits as well. What
WP:PERX. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Citations 3, 5, and 8 demonstrate notability as a rising company in the Indian Stock Market. I agree that there is not much information available about the company currently, but I still feel as its enough to create an article. Tooncool64 (talk) 03:01, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, there is not much information available. So how does it meet notability guidelines? None of the references you mentioned meet
WP:ORGCRIT. In fact, one is a press release. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I believe it does, and no, I will not elaborate. Tooncool64 (talk) 03:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No
    WP:ORGCRIT in English and Telugu google. Only announcements such as the company getting a rs 80 crore contract. Nothing to qualify as SIGCOV. बिनोद थारू (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator‎.

(non-admin closure) Scorpions1325 (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Lisa Jahn

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

Notability not established under

WP:NATHLETE which says for this category of competitor Significant coverage is likely to exist for athletes from any sport if they have won a medal at the modern Olympic Games, including the Summer Olympics (since 1896) or the Winter Olympics (since 1924)... This competitor did not achieve a medal and is not presumed notable. Will bundle several other Olympics canoeists who likewise did not medal. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Bundled additional non-medaling canoeist articles listed above. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment regarding "non-medaling". Jahn won medals at the World Championships, which is a level equal to the Olympics, only in different years. Same with Nuevo. I therefore opine to procedurally keep the two and focus the discussion on people who really are non-medalists. Geschichte (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Germany. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan, Moldova, and Cuba. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. Probably a majority of modern Olympians will have significant coverage in their native country - it is inappropriate to bundle seven different Olympians of different countries with different accomplishments (some seem to be world champs, etc.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both for procedural grounds but also on merit. I did a bit of looking into
    Sanspo [4], News [5]. The idea that she wouldn't meet the notability threshold is absurd. Given nom's failure to do a search on this one, I doubt they have on the others. DCsansei (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    WP:SIGCOV to me. Can you clarify your argument? Are you saying these are SIGCOV, or are you saying that SIGCOV in offline/older sources likely exists given this modern coverage? Suriname0 (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Very important to keep in mind that significant coverage in Japanese will appear much shorter to English-native editors, just as a function of how the language works and style of writing even in newspapers which tends to stick to facts much more than Western outlets. See for example this article. I do think additional SIGCOV exists but I think that the coverage from the national TV channel, Sanspo, Yomiuri Shinbun among others does meet the minimum for notability without finding more. DCsansei (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those are close to SIGCOV, even if we were to give some kind of exception for the depth of Japanese sources (which we should not, because notability is exclusively derived from the amount and depth of IRS SIGCOV, not the importance of someone's achievements). The first is the standard athlete blurb derived from their sports org's website Red XN. The second is a stats page with no secondary coverage Red XN. The third is a passing mention Red XN. The fourth is a press release Red XN. The fifth looks like a local-interest community news story, though I can't access the whole thing. Like all GNG-predicting SNGs, NSPORT standards demand NOTNEWS is met, which means routine reports are not considered SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 18:05, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is "keep for merit" a rationale at AfD? I thank JoelleJay for the source analysis is great, and will say BEFORE found similar routine coverage of the others, this is a good example. Jahn and Nuevo's WC medals notwithstanding; I accept the "procedural keep" on those two suggested by the first AfD response. Note that the language spoken in Moldova is Romanian, so I searched on the Latin characters for the two Moldovan names which seems to work OK (i.e. Cyrillic not required). ☆ Bri (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As a gold medalist at world competitions equal to the Olympics,
    WP:SPORTSPERSON says, "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor". There are sources in place that document this honor. Looks like Lisa Jahn also received medals at world-level competitions. Again, this merits a Wikipedia article. I endorse the suggestion to withdraw this nomination and submit each person individually. Rublamb (talk) 20:54, 19 December 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. Daniel (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lalitha Jewellery

AfDs for this article:
Lalitha Jewellery (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)

Soft deletion back in November. Recreated so sending back to AfD for consensus. Original deletion rationale - Company fails

WP:ATD. After further assessment of the references, I don’t think that would be an option as I don’t feel the company is notable. CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Source assessement:
1. Economic Times, brief mention (one sentence). Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH
.
2. Hans India, interview with the Chairman of the company and fails
WP:NEWSORGINDIA
based on the byline. Likely a PR piece.
3. Sakshi, another interview with the Chairman and coincidentally published within 30 days of the interview listed above.
4. Economic Times, company listing similar to those found in Crunchbase or Bloomberg. Fails CORPDEPTH.
5. The Hindu Businessline, (added since previous deletion) churnalism and NEWSORGINDIA. See the byline and tone of the reference.
6 Economic Times, (added since previous deletion) business listing, fails ORGCRIT and CORPDEPTH.
7. DT Next, written by the Chairman of the company. Not independent.
8. New Indian Express, Fails NEWSORGINDIA with a byline of “express news service” which is customary with churnalism for this publication.
9. Deccan Chronicle, a number of issues including failing NEWSORGINDIA with byline of “DC Correspondent” which indicates press release or churnalism. Also is considered a routine announcement of a location opening.
10. India Today, this is the only reference that I find that comes close to WP:ORGCRIT. However, it is a news story about a robbery that happened at the store so effectively routine news coverage as it talks about the robbery and isn’t in-depth about the company.
11. Tamil Samayam, another article about a robbery.
12. Hindustan Times, article about the robbery suspect surrendering to authorities. This reference is about the robbery and not in-depth about the company itself.
13. The Hindu, another that fails NEWSORGINDIA with a byline of “The Hindu Bureau.” The coverage is also about a donation that the company made to a temple so not in-depth about the company itself.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
14. Times of India,(added since previous deletion) routine announcement of industry award. Nothing in-depth.
15. Deccan Chronicle, (added since previous deletion) Another routine announcement of industry award. Only two sentences and likely NEWSORGINDIA.
Updated the above assessment list to include the references currently on the page. Also pinging @Wcquidditch: who was the only person who voted in last discussion. Page creator was notified via script. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 21:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: based on the source analysis given by the nominator. Charlie (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've gone through the sources and find the analysis presented brilliant. Suitskvarts (talk) 09:13, 24 December 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 Association for the Social Scientific Study of Jewry#The Marshall Sklare Award. 14 days with no objection to this happening, consider this a 'soft' redirect due to lack of participation. Daniel (talk) 22:11, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Sklare Award

Marshall Sklare Award (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)

Merge into parent org

WP:GNG Longhornsg (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 21:30, 18 December 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. There is clearly no appetite for deletion here, and several editors have convincingly demonstrated that there is material in RS that pertains to this general topic. One of the main arguments to merge is convincingly rebutted by the issue of size. The concern about POV had much more agreement, but there wasn't similar agreement that the POV issues would by fixed by merging. I suggest that participants accept the existence of an article on the general topic, and explore solving specific POV issues (including via partial merges, if needed) via talk page discussion. FWIW, after a brief read it was clear to me that some pieces of the article had NPOV issues, but if there is an overall POV to the article it isn't obvious to me what that is. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict (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)

POV fork of Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Note that other wars also don't have "children in... x" articles. The choice of topic dooms this article to be a POV fork, because a country that is very rich can afford to not send its children to war (e.g. by using drones) or when they do they can afford advanced weaponry and armor. Both sides rely on indoctrination (religious or not) to keep the conflict going for yet another generation, but only for one side this is mentioned in the article. I've removed this photo from the article. Polygnotus (talk) 14:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

You don't think its a bit weird to have a photo from the IDF that shows Palestinian children with cancer on a ski trip in an article about "Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict"? This kinda stuff would get reverted in milliseconds on the main article. Its just one example, there are many examples of POV in the article. Polygnotus (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV problems are not a reason to delete. Selfstudier (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both content and articles get deleted for being POV all the time. Polygnotus (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors already cannot agree which is the parent article, because there isn't one. Selfstudier (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is more than one. This is not uncommon for POV forks (or so I'm told). Polygnotus (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Palestinian child cancer patients on a ski trip organized by Israeli soldiers
  • Merge - “Other stuff doesn’t exist” has never been a good argument at AFD. The article is well sourced and potentially viable as a topic. However, I do have concerns about the Neutrality of the article as it currently exists. While AFD is not for article clean up, I think it best to merge it back to the parent article (where it will get more eyes) and improve its flaws… then, perhaps, split it off again. Blueboar (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multi-merge and split: [EC] I don't agree the article will be necessarily a POV fork. (It is already a topic area that is in a state of constant POV chaos, the removal of one photo says little -- I removed another shortly after it was posted for similar reasons -- at least this article is not
    WP:OWNed
    the way so many others in this topic are.) However, it is currently an unspecific jumble of topics only related by being in the same multigenerational conflict -- everything from child terrorists to child war victims to propaganda to child welfare and education in the respective states.
The content should instead be merged into the
child soldiers and terrorists. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
To this point, on article splits with nonspecific titles, see my suggestion for the only appropriate image lead for "Children in X conflict". On the other hand, for a properly scoped fork of longstanding conflict, see for example Child soldiers in Sri Lanka, Healthcare in the State of Palestine vs Healthcare in Israel (could be improved certainly), Education in Afghanistan, etc. "Children" on the other hand is not a specific policy topic from which to split a geopolitics article. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image I'm referring to is nonfree, but it's the one in Think of the children § Lovejoy's Law. I bothered with the meme to make it clear that I am mocking the title and scope of this article. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and work to improve it. The OP's main argument is fallacious. We don't have "Children in the X war" articles because that wasn't a focus of RS coverage. For example, there are not many RS about children in the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. But children victims in Gaza have certainly been a focus of RS coverage in this case. For good reason, in my opinion (I'm disclosing that I'm not "neutral" about this war.). NightHeron (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is clearly untrue. Look at the sources used in the article. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. Sure there are news articles about specific incidents that involve children, sources that include a portion about children, and sources that talk about Palestinian children. But where are the sources that are about this specific topic (children on both sides of this particular war)? Also, there *are* RS that discuss children during WW2. Polygnotus (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case its probably best to get rid of it. Polygnotus (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bad nom of a page that is clearly not a POVFORK of anything, but a sub-topic/child article on the conflict. The suggestion to merge is meanwhile nonsensical given that the substantial body of material here (extant since 2004) would clearly bloat the parent and be undue there. It is also clearly a viable standalone topic. Aside from the existing body of sourcing here, there are scholarly sources out there that even more expressly address the topic, making it unlikely that
    Iskandar323 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
@
WP:BEFORE
you'll find that these links are NOT about the topic of the article:
1) A meta-analysis of studies. The studies focus on one of the sides.
2) The Impact of Conflict on Children - The Palestinian Experience
3) The article examines the political socialization of young Jewish-Israeli children
4) In this paper we analyze the impact of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict on child labor and school attendance of Palestinian children in the West Bank
5) "updated review of research". Again, the studies focus on one of the sides.
6) The studies focus on one of the sides.
7) That's just google scholar.
8) incarceration of Palestinian children.
Polygnotus (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so two sides, which makes one whole, so no NPOV issue.
Iskandar323 (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The POVFORK is a NPOV issue. And a BEFORE search clearly shows that the article topic does not meet WP:GNG. Polygnotus (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Being right isn't how this works; the issue is that there appears to be no obvious cause for deletion, merging, or anything else here.
Iskandar323 (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Except the fact we are dealing with a
WP:GNG Polygnotus (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
You can keep repeating that but it doesn't improve the argument any. Selfstudier (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge individual sections with corresponding existing articles. The main problem with this agglomeration of unrelated topics with the theme of "children" isn't POV, but WP:SYNTH. The provided sources do not link the use of child soldiers with, say, child victims among civilians, and rightly so. The connection made in this article is an artifact created by the WP author.
That said, the article does suffer from an NPOV issue, albeit not the usual one. The choice of 18 as the threshold age for the term "child" reflects a specific POV. The Islamic Jihad and Hamas have both said that they consider children of 16 to be adults, as does Israel in the occupied territories. By us labelling 16- and 17 year olds as "children", we are forcing our Westernized PoV on events where participants consider these people to be adults. To the credit of the article, it does mention this discrepancy in the "Legal issues" section, but plum ignores the issue in the rest of the article. The statistics quoted would be dramatically different if the term "child" was defined as under 16. I don't believe there is a clean way to resolve this problem without splitting the article into separate, topic-based pages, which we need to do anyway to resolve the SYNTH issue. Owen× ☎ 18:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Won't the parts suffer from the same criticism you are making of the whole? Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they?
WP:SYNTH opens with the instruction, Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Once we've separated the material that was improperly combined by the article, it will no longer suffer from SYNTH. The POV issues can then be fixed per section. Owen× ☎ 19:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
If the POV issues can be fixed in the parts, then they can be fixed in the whole. That leaves the SYNTH (original research) assertion but with sources like Children as Victims and Activists in the Israeli/Palestinian Conflict (Book Chapter), as well as those above, I don't see that assertion as convincing, at any rate not sufficiently convincing that some judicious editing of the article won't fix. Selfstudier (talk) 19:29, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is just a chapter of a book with that title. The book is actually called: "National and International Civilian Protection Strategies in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"... And the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues can't be fixed without at least splitting the article in two parts. Polygnotus (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty more if one actually looks, Children in Palestine and Israel continue to suffer as international law is routinely ignored, splitting into two parts is something you just made up.Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine if we find a source that actually is about the topic of the article, after ~310 attempts, that still does not fix the WP:SYNTH/WP:OR (whatever you wanna call it) and WP:POV problems. Polygnotus (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: the Conversation article you linked to specifically talks about children as victims of military violence. Not a word about child soldiers or children being used as suicide bombers. This further supports what SamuelRiv, Polygnotus, Blueboar and I have been saying about the need to split this article. Owen× ☎ 19:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you can somewhere find a book that talks about the challenges children face in Israel/Palestine holistically. It would just be either a young adult motivational/inspirational/guide book, or else a teachers or parents manual. Not the kind of reference for positing that "children in X" form a coherent topic for the purposes of an encyclopedia article. It's not worth trying to make up some objective lawyery RS argument here though -- it's just how to do expository (i.e. encyclopedic) writing. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a technical nitpick: the hodgepodge of unrelated children-related topics into a "Children of X" article isn't SYNTH, it's a MOS issue of article titles and organization. While an example like this isn't spelled out in the rulebook (it's sorta alluded to in
WP:REORGANIZE), it shouldn't have to be since this is a pretty straightforward mess. SamuelRiv (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps you're right, SamuelRiv. Either way, I think we both agree on what the solution is. Owen× ☎ 19:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then the solution is to clean up the mess, btw, if your views hold sway, are y'all going to do the work? Y'know, splitting it up and parking the parts wherever, cleaning up? Probably not, right? Selfstudier (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an AfD. Merge has always been a viable consensus option in such discussions. Don't you think it would be a bad form to start merging the article while the AfD is ongoing, for less than a day even? SamuelRiv (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TNT Polygnotus (talk
)
This article was created in 2004, good luck with that.Selfstudier (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Articles on this topic enjoy massive editor participation. But in the unlikely event that no one else does the split/merge job, then yes, I'll be happy to jump in and do the work. I'd also love it if you, Selfstudier, helped with the mergers, seeing as you have ample experience editing articles on this topic, and can probably do a better job than I could with this one. There's really no need to be adversarial about this. We both want the content to stay here, we just need to find a better spot for it. Owen× ☎ 20:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the goal is to make something better then I'm down of course. I don't know how to split/merge but I can take a critical look at the result. Polygnotus (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have listened to the arguments and find them wanting. The idea that an article with a 20 year history suddenly becomes a deletion candidate is entirely ridiculous. If over time, the article has lost focus, presumably due to random additions not strictly speaking within scope, then the remedy is to undo that, not start ripping up an otherwise perfectly good article.Selfstudier (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Literally all articles are candidates for merging or deletion. The problem isn't just that the article "lost focus". The problem is more fundamental than that. Polygnotus (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:POVFORK and should also be deleted for that reason. If you click on those 4 links you see that none of them are about the topic of the article (children in the conflict as a whole, in both Israel and Palestina, since the beginning of the conflict till now). They are about Gazan children. Based on your choice of links I am surprised that you vote keep; do you really want Wikipedia to keep an article that by its choice of topic is automatically biased against Palestinians and pro-Israeli? Polygnotus (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
If you believe
WP:POVFORK. This article's topic is mentioned in researches, for example:[10], [11]. I can't see why this article is biased against Palestinian children - I find it balanced, and that's one of the reasons I !voted keep. HilbertSpaceExplorer (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 21:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "Other wars also don't have children in x articles" isn't a very policy-based argument. The article clearly has citations to numerous reliable sources, with sources documenting actions by both sides of the conflict. There is more than enough material specifically covering how children are affected by and used in the conflict to justify its own article. While legitimate concerns may be raised on whether the article is NPOV, as well as about the quality of the article, there is nothing that can't be addressed by rewriting the article, the nom's NPOV concerns alone are not sufficient reason for deletion. Take for example the argument 'Both sides rely on indoctrination (religious or not) to keep the conflict going for yet another generation, but only for one side this is mentioned in the article.' If you really believe indoctrination by one side wasn't covered by the article, just go look up reliable sources documenting said indoctrination and cite them in the article. Also if you think the article doesn't talk enough about children who are victims of the conflict, you could easily add that in - there's no shortage of reliable sources covering that.Combustible Vulpex (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC) Not extended-confirmed as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles. Daniel (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neutrality issues should be addressed, rather than serving as a reason to remove articles. Suitskvarts (talk) 10:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think it is credible to call an article that has existed since 2004, has been edited 1619 times by 445 different users and has 261 incoming links from article space a POVFORK. POVFORKs are normally made by individuals or very small groups of people and are either stomped on quickly or fly under the radar for a while before being detected and dealt with. This is not an under the radar article! Sure, people have had concerns about its neutrality since 2004, and those need to be addressed, but wiping the whole subject out and pretending that it doesn't exist is not a way towards neutrality, or anything else of value. I'm neutral to mildly sympathetic towards a merge but I don't think this AfD is the best place to choose that. It would be better to keep this and then let somebody put together a coherent merge proposal and then to discuss that separately. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an article with this title. I do not know if the current text is NPOV, but that's not what XFD is for. Andre🚐 21:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Andre. Tooncool64 (talk) 02:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC) Not extended-confirmed as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles. Daniel (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. बिनोद थारू (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was ‎ keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cláudio Costa Neto

Cláudio Costa Neto (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)

Cannot find any information about this chemical engineer. Referenced books do not seem to exist or are not present in any databases under these English titles. He has a page on the IFRJ website, but I don't think it meets

WP:PROF. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 21:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I realize now that I was hasty in proposing this article for deletion. I came across the article in the cleanup listing as a page with one edit in 5 years to add a 'no references' template, and in my search to find supporting evidence I found none and multiple persons that shared his name in similar fields. I am certain there is plenty of material to use to make it better, though I have been having a lot of difficulty finding it anywhere on the Internet, for example the document regarding his creation of "Projecto Xistoquímica" in 1976 under the journal (book?) Energia do Brasil. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 00:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean you would like to withdraw the nomination? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to withdraw the nomination, though I am concerned that there is very little record of his published papers despite the evidence that they exist, in addition to the confusion with other people in similar fields and geographic location that share or have a very similar name. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 14:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. There is just about a consensus below to delete, disregarding rationales that don't have a solid basis in policy.

WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE provides that a rough consensus allows an administrator to close as delete. Per FormalDude, the key argument here (regarding notability) hasn't been answered. Right path forward here is deleting the article per this rough consensus. Daniel (talk) 22:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Sandeep Guleria

Sandeep Guleria (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)

1) I am not in a position to update and keep tab on this page. 2) I found the defamatory news are linked to this page without even remotely any substance. 3) I do not want to be associated with defamation case or legal complication.

I hope above my statement is accepted and delete this page.

XfD. [reply
]

(Filed by User:FormalDude on nominator's behalf. Request for deletion received via VRTS ticket # 2023121110002296.)

Since am the one who created the page, I hold it important, to delete it.
I hope that any author have rights will be respected foremost.
I am not into debate on rest of the issues at this stage. Rejimonck (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 20:45, 18 December 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) Let'srun (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Sam Kaplan (American football)

Sam Kaplan (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)

No

WP:GNG. Open to redirecting this to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921 or another target. Let'srun (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

changed to neutral per below request to withdraw. Frank Anchor 00:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Article has now been expanded substantially. Cbl62 (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Appears to be just enough
    WP:SIGCOV now. Willing to withdraw this AfD, what do you think @Frank Anchor? Let'srun (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC).[reply
    ]
It’s enough for me to not get in the way of a good faith request to withdraw. Some SIGCOV, not a lot, but that’s typical for a player of that era. Frank Anchor 00:50, 19 December 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'm simply not seeing a consensus here. The coverage being shown here is on the thin side (as some editors argue) but not so obviously inadequate that I can substantially discount the keeps. Conversely, there seem to be legitimate objections to a merger both on process and content; I generally consider process-based arguments to be weak at AfD, because that tends to reflect a behavioral problem that AfD isn't set up to deal with; but it is significant that a very recent merge discussion did not find consensus, and nobody has really suggested that the evidence has changed since then. The opposition to a merger on the substance is also strong. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lord British

Lord British (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've addressed this before, but frankly speaking, while

WP:BEFORE
becomes notoriously hard, but when you rifle through it you find that the character is often seldom discussed as a fictional character.

In addition, while it's been suggested players trying to find ways to kill the character across the Ultima series gives him notability (leading to the coining of the "Lord British Postulate" trope, though trying to find sources on that shows it's also barely discussed in SIGCOV) I'm going to argue that gives Ultima as a series notability, especially Ultima Online, but the character itself doesn't inherit that notability. The reactions are more to a recurring game mechanic, and not the fictional character.

And that's the important thing to remember: this is an article about a fictional character. Notability needs to demonstrate why the character itself matters beyond the series. Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Richard Garriott. As others have stated Lord British doesn't seem to be independently notable from Garriott and the Ultima series. Also, half the article and two thirds of the references are about killing Lord British in-game, which is a long-running Ultima community joke, so even if we were to retain this article, it should probably be about killing said video game character. Cortador (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It appears that consensus for a redirect is forming. If this happens, please add a "This article is about the game developer. For the video game character etc." note to Garriotts article that links to List of Ultima characters. Thank you! Cortador (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Indrian Even in the source Dream Focus mentioned above, he's continued to use the name and appearance to represent himself in games beyond the Ultima series. It's not a far fetch to suggest that the target is fair.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is fair game to mention in his article, but that is very different from asserting that the Lord British character IS Garriott. The character in the games is not Garriott anymore than the bloodthirsty pirate Captain Hawkins is actually Trip Hawkins. Garriott does this a lot. Some are in jokes, some are easter eggs, and yes, some like Captain Hawkins are (not so) subtle takedowns of people Garriott feels aggrieved by, but they are all references. The target article people are calling for this to be merged into is not the right one to deal with this. And this is the wrong forum considering the previous merge attempt. Start a merge discussion (NOT an AFD) to a target article I feel is appropriate, and you will likely have my support. Indrian (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
Lord British Postulate are both also viable options, and aren't able to be covered by a merge discussion (especially when there's disagreement on *where* to merge it, as brought up by that previous discussion). I would be grateful if you assumed some good faith.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Multiple sources assert notability. According to Wired magazine, "among fans [of Ultima].. no [character] was more revered than Lord British, ruler of Britannia". [13] The book 100 greatest video game characters (2017) published by Rowman & Littlefield ISBN 9781442278127 takes a serious justified approach to the list, devoting a chapter to Lord British.[14] The PC Gamer magazine (2021) included Lord British in its list of 50 most iconic game characters.[15] Lord British (the character) is discussed throughout the book Virtual Justice: the new laws of online worlds (2010) published by Yale University Press.[16] The book The evolution of fantasy role-playing games (2011) [17] discusses an important aspect of the Lord British character, also discussed in the book Creating Things That Matter. [18] Archive.org has nearly 13,000 results for Lord British. Most of it is gaming magazines from the 1980s. But there is reliable content, also. More help requested searching these sources I found the above sources in the first 22 pages of results (each page is about 50 so there might be 260 pages of results, I only got through the first 10%). -- GreenC 02:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The first one is a direct assertion of notability, it is significant in coverage, the same way a source that claimed "Gandis one of the most important people in human history" is significant, even though a single sentence. Significance does not mean only word count, this has been gone over forever. The second one is a book it's not a listicle discounting that source is overreach. Virtual Justice demonstrates how notable the character is it was used for an academic study, again discounting that source is overreach. The search on Internet Archive for text inside books doesn't work that way unfortunately you have to choose words that are adjacent otherwise you get inaccurate totals. I explained why I posted that search result, and PLACED THAT REASON IN BOLD TEXT SO NO ONE COULD MISREPRESENT IT. But of course you misrepresented it anyway, along with all your other misrepresentation of the sources. I don't find your objections to be credible, they are rationalizations. -- GreenC 04:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, I meant to say "the third" in regards to the list. The PC Gamer article is a listicle. You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of notability: displaying significant discussion on the subject in question. A sentence going stating "among fans [of Ultima].. no [character] was more revered than Lord British, ruler of Britannia" by itself is offering nothing to that end no matter what publication it's in. And as for your outrage in "misrepresenting", you dropped a link saying there were "13k results" when you didn't bother to refine it yourself. Assuming good faith here, but reading these sources one has to consider what would be said in a citation regarding them. We can't refbomb a character into being notable, plenty of past AfDs have shown that.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been engaged in AfD for decades and know precisely what notability means. The problem is you have a singular view, and one not held by everyone. There has been considerable discussion on this topic in the appropriate forums. What do you mean I didn't refine it?! I said clearly I checked the first 10%, and requested help from other editors to find additional sources. Do you have a problem with that? Now your accusing me of bad faith. You are something else. I have nothing more to say to you. -- GreenC 04:57, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not accusing you of bad faith and apologize if that came across wrong, I'm pointing out you cast too wide a net with the search you linked: searching for "Lord British" is going to turn up any article about Garriot, or his other uses of the character in non-Ultima appearances. You need to search for "Lord British" and "Ultima" together if you're going to dig through Archive.org.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not going to bludgeon the discussion, but my opinion on the matter is still completely unchanged despite the above debate and "Keep" !votes. The above sources largely talk about Lord British as an "alter-ego" or "avatar" of Richard Garriott, and the real person and the avatar are intrinsically linked to the point it does not make sense to have two articles. The thing Lord British is most known for is being Richard Garriott. It does seem like we're headed for a "yes, Lord British is technically notable, probably shouldn't have an article but half the people believe he should" result and a redux of the merge discussion, so it was relatively pointless to do this AfD to confirm that. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge as compromise. As most of the keep !votes still support a merge to a different target, I sympathize that neither target makes 100% sense.
    • This article is substantially about the fictional character (but largely unsourced).
    • Outside of
      WP:PLOT
      summaries, the scant sources about its reception is about it being an avatar of the Richard Garriott (but is only a brief part of the current article, as written).
  • The solution is to summarize the information and cover each aspect in both articles, with a "see also" hatnote below the section header. There isn't substantial material in either case (Lord British is a recurring character in the series, Lord British is also surrogate character for Richard Garriott). I recommend that the redirect aim towards the fictional character, but that's something that can easily be decided through editing, after the AFD is closed. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Shooterwalker: I disagree with the scant sources about its reception is about it being an avatar of the Richard Garriott: The brief reception section we have deals with the evaluation of the character sans any relation to Richard Gariott. The impact of the "assassination" of the character is only tangentially related to its creator. That said, and while I remain with my keep !vote, if there should be consensus to merge, the described split of present information to those two targets seems the best course of action to me. Daranios (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources presented demonstrate notability and a merge to either Richard Garriott or the list article would be awkward. Charcoal feather (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The WordsmithTalk to me 20:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The duration and depth of coverage, even if just for one aspect of the character, is sufficient to meet GNG. Nothing wrong with a merge discussion, I just disagree that it necessarily must be enforced as a matter of policy. Jclemens (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jclemens The problem is there's some partial agreement that merging is viable, but nobody can agree to where. It's been suggested to possible reformat the article to focus on the Ultima Online death as The killing of Lord British and work the postulate into there, but what you think about that as an option?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The very long merge discussion Talk:Richard_Garriott#Lord_British_merge_proposal was open from July to November. No reason to have another merge discussion, there no way for people to convince each other. Too much valid information to fit in any other article. Creating a new article for some of the information makes no sense at all. Why have an article for the killing of a character, without an article telling who the character was and explaining why they were so important? Dream Focus 11:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles of a similar nature such as Corrupted Blood incident without having to have a "Hakkar the Soulflayer" character article, and by your own citations most revolve around attempts to kill this character. Even the 1000 Video Games Heroes book citation is almost entirely about the Ultima Online event.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That article is completely unrelated. Its about a single event that happened in World of Warcraft. There are references in this article talking about the Lord British character, and about how he was killed in other games. Dream Focus 17:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, only one of these deaths was a notable event and helped define the whole "postulate". Lord British doesn't inherit notability due to the event, the same reason Hakkar doesn't due to the Corrupted Blood bug.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You want to delete this article and create a much smaller one for just one event? Dream Focus 18:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I want to create a much more fleshed out one for that event. When you remove unnecessary sentences like "Lord British does not appear in Ultima VIII" the article's currently much smaller than it seems. But sources like this make it clear it was an important event all its own. British by himself isn't notable, but the killing, and the elements that led to players habitually wanting to kill his character to a lesser extent, are.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:DEFINITE.) Keeping the simpler title in no way hinders you to further flesh out the killing event within our article here. Daranios (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Daranios: Well if you're certain, write a reception section focusing on anything other than killing his character. Please, do. I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong looking at these sources. Show that there's SIGCOV not revolving around how players want to kill him but illustrating he has real world importance as a fictional character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
== Reception ==
In a 2021 list published by PC Gamer staff, Lord British is ranked among the most iconic characters in PC gaming.
Wired magazine called Lord British "an idealized father figure - strong and brave, patient and loving, wise and powerful".
Significant doesn't mean long, but context. Various reliable sources consider the character significant. Dream Focus 11:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dream you and I are both aware that's trivial and not what SIGCOV means. That wouldn't even hold up a Pokemon article on its own!--Kung Fu Man (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not trivial to mention how notable a character is. Trivial would be to mention they were in a game without saying anything else about them. Trivial is defined as https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trivial of little worth or importance, but this mentions their worth and importance. Dream Focus 11:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What we have as reception is short, but like
editorial questions about what best to name the article and how to best arrange the contents, not reasons for deletion. Daranios (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The problem is, quite frankly, you're arguing that the character should inherit notability from the event. Even the overall *killing* of the character across the games isn't notable. The main Ultima Online event is, due to the reactions to it. And DreamFocus's citations fail
WP:SIGCOV: quick, short mentions of a character that don't provide notability to a subject. Just two passing mentions for a "short" reception section.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I am looking at this from two angles, both leading to almost the same result: On the one hand, there is coverage by secondary sources on the character, a larger portion(?) of them dealing with the killing event, and a smaller portion of them dealing with other aspects of the character, which together give us enough material to fullfill

WP:WHYN
. So we can have an article on the character, which obviously includes the killing incident.
On the other hand, if we look at the killing incident as an event, and there is enough coverage in secondary sources to make this event notable, we could have an article about this event. But to have relevant
WP:NOTINHERITED which you have referred to.) And then we are back at our article and the editorial question if it should better be named Lord British or Killing of Lord British. Daranios (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

What secondary sources though? The ones provided above are either a) about the killing or b) about Garriot. Reception towards the character itself is near nonexistent, partly because if you don't include Garriot in there it doesn't matter. This isn't a case like Weighted Companion Cube, where people's perceptions towards a character shaped how they perceived it and there was discussion on that. You have an unfortunate situation in the end where a character is known, and nothing is said about them. All the information on Lord British (the character) can easily be included in his list entry (which it already is) and linked back to from that article, which can as is give a summary of the character. But British the fictional character needs to demonstrate notability as a fictional character, not because of one game event that was discussed due to being one of the earliest MMO controversies, and not due to its creator who uses it as his secondary persona or his actions through his avatar.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I fear we start to recover old ground. What we have on the character besides his relation to Richard Garriot and the assassination is the reception section, which I do not find trival. Nor are these passing mentions, they refer to the character very directly and explicitely. And the plot summary in sources like the Kotaku and 100 greatest video game characters p. 120, and others. All of that is short enough that would fit into
Richard Garriot. And we could have a separate article on the Killing of Lord British. I am not fundamentally opposed to such a solution, I find it feasible. But I simply find having these three types of information, all intrinsically linked to the character Lord British in one place the preferable option. And there was no consensus by a wider array of persons for such a solution at the previous merge discussion either. What I would be fundamentally opposed to would be removing what we have as a reception and the like from Wikipedia alltogether. Daranios (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Then the problem becomes one of
WP:UNDUE: most of the discussions about the Ultima Online event does not actively discuss the character in the context, only the event and the reactions. A similar instance happened with Sombra (Overwatch)
, where she had an ARG tied to her reveal, and there was massive discussion about that. Earlier versions of her article included that discussion, which brought into question, again, Undue, the implication of her inheriting notability from it, and whether that discussion was better as its own article or part of the Development article. It was separated, but Sombra stands on her own because there's active discussion about Sombra as a character (and speaking frankly there's enough discussion on the ARG I'll probably flesh it out into its own article eventually). So there is a precedent for whether an event tied to a character should make the subject "count" for notability itself.
I think you get what I'm trying to argue, that the event eclipses the character and it itself doesn't provide notability, and would further require it to be discussed in diminished capacity to avoid Undue if it is bootstrapped here. I will say I'm not opposed to the idea of including what little reception British has in his list entry as we do with others. That would preserve the information while also leaving the opportunity to spin it back out if by some chance the subject gets enough SIGCOV as a fictional character later.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per above. Tooncool64 (talk) 02:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - from reading and studying all the newly developed dialogue and discussions from above, it seems the subject matter is, in my opinion, worthy to be a standalone article that passes
    WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Selective merge or bust Bit ambitious. A selective merge that splits information between Richard Garriott and Ultima (series) seems like the only commonsense outcome to avoid the inconvenience of heaping excessive in-universe information in Garriott's biography or removing it altogether. I don't think a generic merge to Richard Garriott is the best outcome. The useful information about Lord British consists of Garriott's self-identification and presentation with the character, and then the appearances and characteristics of that character in the Ultima series, including the invincibility arc. These are fairly conceptually separate. If there's enough significant coverage a creation of the Killing of Lord British article or like would be valuable without invoking the notability issues for the character. Given the complexity of the discussion I have a feeling I am only adding fuel to the fire, but at least it's nice and toasty! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:16, 27 December 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 Khazar rulers#Khazar Khagans (Ashina dynasty). Daniel (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khalga and Kaban

Khalga and Kaban (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 has lacked sources for 14 years now. This shows a strong possibility of a lack of interest and/or notability on the part of the subject. The article should be deleted until such time that an editor cares enough to find reliable secondary sources, if they exist. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:34, 18 December 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 players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1925. Daniel (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Darroll DeLaPorte

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

Nothing is here to indicate this subject has the requisite

WP:BEFORE check only came up with [[20]] and confirmation of his death. Open to redirecting this to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1925 or another target. Let'srun (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, American football, and Wisconsin. Let'srun (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it likely that DeLaPorte has biography in the book The Badgers: Milwaukee's NFL Entry of 1922-1926; also worth noting that an "E. C. DeLaPorte" was prominent in a scandal where high school players played for Milwaukee in one game in 1925 ([21]). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that there are quite a few people from the area with the same last name though, so that doesn't prove anything. Let'srun (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that a group of high school kids played for the 1925 Milwaukee NFL team (0–7 record, outscored 204–14) shows it to have been a bit of a ragtag organization where notability should absolutely not be presumed from appearing in a single game. Cbl62 (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW it was only one game in particular, and it appears to have been only four players - we also don't presume notability for these players (or any pro football players in particular at this point). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    True . . . but can you imagine it? High school kids being recruited to play on an "NFL" team? Cbl62 (talk) 23:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't imagine what it'd be like to be asked in high school, "hey, do you want to play in the NFL?" Hah... the topic is definitely interesting - rather surprising there isn't more coverage of it and the players... but DeLaPorte doesn't seem to have been one of the four high-schoolers? Would be interesting to know if there was any connection between him and the "E. C. DeLaPorte" of the scandal, haven't seen any mention of it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just goes to show how different the 1920s NFL was to today. Let'srun (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:SPORTBASIC provides: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database source." (emphasis added) This article fails to do so despite having been on the 'pedia for over 13 years. If and when SIGCOV is found and added, the redirect can be reversed. Cbl62 (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Redirect to above. Suitskvarts (talk) 11:48, 24 December 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)‎


The Crown (season 1)

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 articles about the individual seasons of The Crown largely duplicate information also found in The Crown (TV series), List of The Crown characters, and List of The Crown episodes; the information which isn't duplicated can probably be incorporated into one of those three articles or deleted.

For example, the main elements of the season 1 article not duplicated elsewhere are the music section, the expanded 'reception' section, and the 'historical accuracy' section. The first is just an album track list, and the second and third are arguably excessively detailed; the historical accuracy section in particular is a list of inaccuracies without any broader context. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)
The historical accuracy sections shouldn't exist, as they're in large part lists of inaccuracies rather than commentary on them. The section on historical accuracy in The Crown (TV series) is enough. The music sections consist of track listings, and the overall production sections are largely devoted to chronological accounts of when casting decisions were made. None of this desperately needs to be included in Wikipedia.
I opened this discussion because I believe The Crown can be covered by its three main articles, it doesn't follow that the same applies to the articles about individual seasons of other TV series. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the parts that cover the inaccuracies should or should not exist is an entirely different debate (after all there is coverage in secondary sources). Even excluding those and the list of actors, the sections on production and development, music, and most importantly critical response cannot be incorporated or merged into another article. Keivan.fTalk 21:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The content of the production and development, music, and critical response sections could mostly be deleted or merged into 'The Crown (TV series)'. For music, for example, all we really need to say is that soundtrack albums have been released for each season; we don't need an infobox or track listing for each. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And why should they be deleted when they are all sourced? This nomination seems to be more about what you 'feel' is important or not, rather than what is actually covered in sources. Keivan.fTalk 21:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something isn't noteworthy just because it can be reliably sourced. For example, while the fact that Helena Bonham Carter was in season 3 is noteworthy, the fact she was cast by January 2018 isn't. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what a casting section typically covers. Have you read any of the other articles about movies or TV series? What do you exactly want it to discuss? It's typically about when they were cast, how they prepared for the role, etc. The first thing that should be considered when nominating a page for deletion is the existence or lack of coverage in independent secondary sources. In this case, there is plenty of coverage on Bonham Carter's casting. This means that there is potential for expanding the section, not deleting it. Keivan.fTalk 21:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I don't believe that the existence of a reliable source makes something inherently worthwhile for inclusion in Wikipedia. As far as I'm aware casting decisions are typically not chronological accounts of when casting decisions are made, but instead give an account of how the actors came to be cast in their roles. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:BLUDGEON. You've raised some good points and I think it was reasonable to respond to them, but I'm going to leave the discussion now (for a couple of days at least) so as not to crowd out other editors. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@A.D.Hope I agree. It was nice debating the matter with you. We both made our points and I think everyone else needs to chime in now. I will only keep an eye on the discussion to see where it goes because if somehow the result is to delete or merge, then there's gonna be some work that needs to be done. Keivan.fTalk 21:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - each article is justified by its critical response section. They could all do with more production information being added, but that makes them a work-in-progress rather than articles that need to be deleted. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree that it's necessary to have such a detailed account of the critical response to each season; the season 1 'Reception' section, for example, mentions twenty different publications by my count. It's fine to give a general critical consensus using Rotten Tomatoes and Metacricic, with one or two more specific examples to give an idea of the tone of the reviews. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That does not give the reader a taste of what the critical consensus actually is. As is evident from various articles that we have on movies (
    Game of Thrones (season 1)), a mere number does not convey anything to our readers and a more detailed account is needed. Keivan.fTalk 21:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The aggregated scores and one or two examples do give readers a taste of the consensus. If they want more detail they can follow the links to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, where many more reviews can be accessed. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot assume that every single reader is familiar with any of those two websites and we cannot tell them to get off the page and get additional information elsewhere. Not to mention that any external website could get shut down or closed at any point. Again, this does not change the fact that there is coverage in secondary sources. Keivan.fTalk 21:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're already selective in this regard, Keivan.f; Rotten Tomatoes lists 77 reviews for season 1, we don't quote them all. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why we choose a number of good and bad reviews from some reputable publications. Again, I don't care about what Rotten Tomatoes is doing, which incidentally gathers reviews from some websites that would not even be considered reliable by the community here. And the whole thing could crash by tomorrow; we cannot rely on an external website to provide information to our readers. Keivan.fTalk 21:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not proposing the complete removal of reviews, but reducing the number of reviews quoted and covering them in 'The Crown (TV series)' rather than in individual season articles. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are widely used as sources for the general critical response to a film or TV series, changing that approach is beyond the scope of this deletion request. A.D.Hope (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You really enjoy reading long, bloated and non-concise articles don't you? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and speedy keep per Keivan.f - -- Shivertimbers433 (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sections covering accuracy alone push these all past GNG easily and are completely justified. It's a popular series with international appeal and an absurd amount of sources beyond here, and each list-of is justified and proper here. Nate • (chatter) 00:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jimmie Wiki (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Deleting season articles is the opposite of progress. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to what everyone above me said, what good would merging 6 season articles into one? That would mean that if a reader would want to read information about season 3, they'll need to read the entire articles of the main article, list of characters and list of episodes, to find the information they need. How is that even remotely a good idea? We split information into season articles for a reason, as they make reading more logical. Gonnym (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Keivan.f and Kailash29792. I think what's also important to remember is that when people search up a season for a show on Wikipedia, they'd want to be able to differentiate the seasons easily rather than scroll through a large page of everything as highlighted by Gonnym. Maxwell King123321 11:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements if kept

Given the consensus emerging above, it might be useful to discuss what improvements will be made to the articles if they're kept. My intent when opening this discussion was to move the best parts of the articles – I know several editors have put a lot of effort into them – and remove the remainder. If the eventual consensus is to keep all the articles, however, we should also commit to raising their general standard. Some things which come to mind immediately are:

  • Re-writing the 'Casting' sections so that they focus on why particular actors were cast, not when.
  • Re-writing the 'Historical accuracy' sections to focus on the response to a season's accuracy and one or two examples, rather than the current list-like format.
  • Generally fleshing out the articles following
    WP:MOSTV
    , such as adding more detailed production information.

If you have any more ideas please feel free to add them below. A.D.Hope (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that everyone is in favor of compartmentalization (so am I). In that scenario, what we should aim for is improving each article given that sources are available. We should mainly focus on production and development and condensing the historical accuracy sections. A list of notable awards for each season can also be introduced. Keivan.fTalk 13:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Honestly, it is too absurd this deletion query for articles related to the series of The Crown, each article referring to each season is quite necessary, being a series that has 6 seasons and one of the most important of Netflix and for the British crown. Some cosmetic improvements can be made as mentioned by the user above. But I repeat, it is unnecessary to have created this deletion query, I was quite impressed being one of the users who translated each article for Wikipedia in Spanish.
    talk) 19:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep particularly per adamstom97 that each season has dedicated sigcov, and also that AfD is not cleanup. ResonantDistortion 00:08, 20 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:37, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ServedBy The Net

ServedBy The Net (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 (and defunct) startup. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 18:07, 18 December 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. An ATD was proposed here, and I was torn about whether to use it or not, but ultimately no other support for doing so existed so I elected to go straight delete. If anyone really, really wants to merge this into another article, let me know on my talk page and I will undelete the history (so you can merge) and redirect it to the target article - but noting that if the content is subsequently removed from the target article, the redirect can then be re-deleted. Hope this makes sense. Daniel (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Gurion Canal Project

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

Fails

WP:SIGCOV in RS that even establish that this is a real thing. Longhornsg (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conspiracy theories, Politics, Engineering, and Israel. Longhornsg (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A research paper from the 60s does not confer notability, on this "thing" that was never built. Sourcing is scant to begin with, all I can find are discussions on websites that seem to want to support one side of the current conflict by pushing a narrative; they are not RS. Oaktree b (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The hypothetical conspiracy theory about the future paragraph from the article should be deleted, not the whole page. All the other proposed canal projects would have to be deleted as well with this rational. With the tensions rising in the Red Sea and the Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi winning an election with 90% of the vote, things are pretty hot there for this to be ignored. I will go ahead and delete the conspiracy theory from the page. Wikideas1 (talk) 04:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But is this actually a proposed canal? Not sure I understand what Sisi winning re-election in a landslide has anything to do with this article meeting what’s articulated in WP policy. Longhornsg (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (selectively) into List of interoceanic canals that has such propsals in its one table (should be two, one for actual, one for plans). The non-conpiracy part of this article belongs there. Negev Canal is the name under which this American plan is now known and should be the name in the table. There are additional sources for this awkward plan. gidonb (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One paper from the 60s. Come on. Zanahary (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The necessary RS are nonexistent. ~ HAL333 17:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but.... It appears that Israel has no such project and therefore there is no proper name "Ben Gurion Canal Project", and the article title should be deleted for that reason. However, ideas for a canal through the Negev to the Gulf of Aqaba have been tossed around since at least the 1880s. Prior to the founding of Israel in 1948 it was called the "Palestine Canal", which is currently the name used at List of interoceanic canals, but perhaps a term like "Negev canal" (probably better than "Negev Canal", as I doubt that is a proper name) would be preferred now. The 1963 Maccabee idea is already mentioned at Project Plowshare and Peaceful nuclear explosion. I have no objection to merging any good content into other articles. In principle, there could be scope for a stand-alone article about the various ideas (actual, i.e. non-conspiracy theory) for a Negev canal. On the other hand, WP does have articles about notable conspiracy theories, so I don't accept that this article should be deleted just because it's a conspiracy theory, although it is arguable that it is not a notable conspiracy theory, as few sources call it such. Nurg (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the earth. Andre🚐 06:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I came to Wikipedia to find information on the ben gurion canal. If you edit the title, future readers will be directed toward other web sources. Maybe you should delete the article. Readers would be directed to sites that offer more information than just a conspiracy theory. 192.140.252.60 (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Poorly sourced based on a dodgy conspiracy. -UtoD 18:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Pure politically motivated conspiracy theory, does not belong on wikipedia. Lansey (talk) 05:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pure conspiracy, No reliable sources, Badly written — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeanLRK (talk • contribs) 11:05, 24 December 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. Daniel (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Secret Breakers

Secret Breakers (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 series of childrens' novels. PepperBeast (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 100% agree, couldn't find any evidence supporting notability. GraziePrego (talk) 00:56, 20 December 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

Igor the Assassin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Daniel (talk) 22:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Igor the Assassin

AfDs for this article:
Igor the Assassin (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 had a read of the sources the article contains, the second source is a tertiary source that quotes News of The World as its source (hardly reliable) and the third source appears to be effectively a blog post that on a read through is incredibly poor quality. The only other source is a book written by the wife of Alexander Litvinenko; I don't have access to the book so can't confirm whether it even discusses "Igor" at all.

Frankly the subject of the article appears to be a complete fabrication by the tabloid press. CoconutOctopus talk 17:31, 18 December 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. As this is a 16-year-old article of a BLP that is unsourced, this is not a soft-deletion. Daniel (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Fassler

Ron Fassler (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)

Unref blp, has been here for 17 years. I could find sources, but not sufficient reliable ones. Boleyn (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. While Owenx makes (in my opinion) a reasonable argument here, it seems consensus disagrees with the assessment of notability derived from those sources presented, and therefore the consensus is to delete. Daniel (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide of Dylan Buckner

Suicide of Dylan Buckner (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)

Whilst tragic, article doesn't meet WP:EVENT or WP:GNG CoconutOctopus talk 16:58, 18 December 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. Daniel (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To Touch the Soul

To Touch the Soul (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 film. No sources beyond

WP:PRIMARY and IMDB. Article orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep based on the reliable sources identified by Mushy Yank above that show significant coverage of the film, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:36, 19 December 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 Unpaid work. Daniel (talk) 22:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valuation of nonmarket housework

Valuation of nonmarket housework (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:ESSAY on a subject that's better covered at unpaid work. Orphaned for a decade. PepperBeast (talk) 16:27, 18 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bangladesh Premier League umpires

List of Bangladesh Premier League umpires (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:NLIST. Umpiring in the BPL is routine for the profession; nothing remarkable; no significant coverage of this list. I completely agree, scoring a 100, taking 5-for or even getting selected to play in a premier tournament like BPL is a significant achievement, all these having articles make sense. But what is the credit of umpires here? Umpiring is a normal profession, simply an appointment. If you have a look at the list, there seems to be many non-notable persons umpiring in BPL. All the sources are just database or stat-based about how many umpired who who umpired. Couldn't find sources which discuss about the subject in a group. Yes, umpiring in 50 or 100 BPL matches might have some coverage, but that's enough to be included in the biography of that umpire. RoboCric Let's chat 16:22, 18 December 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 Whole Foods Market as an AtD. Daniel (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genji, LLC

Genji, LLC (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)

11 years ago, somebody wrote on the talk page "This page reads like an ad for Genji Inc." Earlier today, it still did. I've cleared out the promotional text, and there's hardly anything left, and a search for sources just come back with more promotional material. The claim to have a global brand of restaurants sounds like a decent claim to notability, but I can't seem to find the sources to go with it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search indicates that it's the company that runs the sushi bars in Whole Foods markets. Unless there's a whole lot more than that, I'm thinking that being a Whole Foods vendor isn't notable.
Banks Irk (talk) 16:25, 18 December 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. Daniel (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KMJC-LD

KMJC-LD (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

WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 16:01, 18 December 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 deleted‎ by

(non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Studio Center Corporation

Studio Center Corporation (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 is non-notable, fails

WP:SIGCOV. Not to mention that it is full of copious copy-pasting and other copyvios and is written in a completely non-neutral manner. AriTheHorse 15:33, 18 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Gutto

Anna Gutto (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)

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article is the most repetitive one I have ever seen on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some helpful rewriting has been done. The theatre section should be streamlined more, more dates need to be added everywhere, and it should be made clear that her film career is more noteworthy than her rather
WP:MILL theatre work. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
— CrafterNova [ TALK ] [ CONT ] 15:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:HEY. Make no mistake, this article was in horrendous shape when it was first nominated for deletion, and much of the article needed to be cut as it was incredibly repetitive (per above comment) and many passages were unreferenced. Many editors have since contributed to improving the article, which easily satisfies notability criteria per sources now cited, such as this feature article in Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten; the Paradise Highway review in Variety (which discusses Gutto's direction); and the review on RogerEbert.com, which analyzes Gutto's writing and direction in detail. There are many other sources cited discussing other aspects of her multi-faceted career as a film director, writer, actor, and translator. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Clearly has
    reliable sources. Recent edits by Cielquiparle have drastically improved the article. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:24, 23 December 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. I find FormalDude's contribution the most persuasive, supported by Oaktree. Two relists hasn't yielded much participation so this is the best consensus I can find out of this debate. Daniel (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Snog

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

Declined prod. Despite the involvement of many notable people, I could not find significant coverage in google news. Even as plain google search of ["Big Snog" telethon -wikipedia] yielded little. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable enough. killer bee  09:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not surprising that there was little to be found online about a 1995 event. After a quick search of newspapers from the time, I found significant coverage here, here, here, and here. There's likely more as I only conducted a brief search. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Based on the newspaper sources given above, it's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 18 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League umpires

List of Indian Premier League umpires (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:NLIST. Umpiring in the IPL is routine for the profession; nothing remarkable; no significant coverage of this list. I completely agree, scoring a 100, taking 5-for or even getting selected to play in a premier tournament like IPL is a significant achievement, all these having articles make sense. But what is the credit of umpires here? Umpiring is a normal profession, simply an appointment. If you have a look at the list, there seems to be many non-notable persons umpiring in IPL. All the sources are just database or stat-based about how many umpired who who umpired. Couldn't find sources which discuss about the subject in a group. Yes, umpiring in 50 or 100 IPL matches might have some coverage, but that's enough to be included in the biography of that umpire. I know it's a featured list- but still challenging. RoboCric Let's chat 14:45, 18 December 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 05:35, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All-China Youth Network Civilization Convention

All-China Youth Network Civilization Convention (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 has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable. @GAOPEIYUN: You are welcome to add cites. If it is notable why does the article not exist in any Chinese languages? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah same, did a google and baidu search, can't find anything other than some random articles not related to it, Baidu has a single result from 2001 semi-related to it. Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 00:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:12, 18 December 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 14:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adetola Salau

Adetola Salau (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: NPOL Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The subject is notable for the fact that she is an Academician she is an adjunct lecturer and certified public schools teacher since 2005 at University of the State of new York city with certificate number 276450 and She as been contributing to the development of STEM in Nigeria thorough different partnership and initiatives the subject isn't a politician but an Appointee her contribution to education and STEM development in Nigeria was why I believe it notability she was nominated and won Awards to her name which was part of the perequisite for notability Royalesignature (talk). 17:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having a teaching license doesn't get you a wikipedia article. Adjunct professor is not notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Source 11 is puffy, the rest are only trivial mentions of the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:Reading Beans
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
https://dailypost.ng/2023/11/11/kwara-gov-appoints-ex-lagos-sa-as-education-adviser/ No "According to a press release by the Chief Press Secretary..."—Press release Yes A strong source if you need information from Northern Nigeria ? ✘ No
https://thisislagos.ng/investing-in-great-teaching-to-truly-prepare-our-students-for-the-future-of-work-adetola-salau/ No She wrote this piece herself ? This is a blog of questionable notability No This is not talking about her ✘ No
https://www.gessleaders.com/dr-adetola-salau No ? Can't really tell if this is reliable Yes She has significant coverage from this organisation ✘ No
https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1099-162x.1978.tb01004.x No Her father's book... ~ can’t judge ~ I don't have access to book (I didn't try to) ✘ No
https://leadership.ng/kwara-gov-appoints-stem-expert-28-other-aides/ No Press release, same as one Yes National daily ? see #1 above ✘ No
https://newsbulletin.com.ng/2023/05/15/adetola-salau-graduates-from-us-varsity/ No This information was gotten from her WhatsApp status and is the same author as #6 No ~ ✘ No
https://punchng.com/tags/dr-adetola-salau/ No Yes National daily ~ same as #1 and #5 above ✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/02/match-skills-with-opportunities-to-retain-skilled-workforce-in-country-adetola-salau-adviser-to-lsg-on-stem-education/ No Yes A lot concerns raised by some people concerning of some piece published by this newspaper cannot expressly remove its reliable (use with a pinch of salt though) Yes It’s an interview, so... ✘ No
https://sunnewsonline.com/lagos-govt-partners-getbundi-to-massify-stem-learning-across-state-schools/ No Press release about a partnership Yes National daily with no affiliation with UK's The Sun No ✘ 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}}.

Continued below:


Source assessment table:
Source
Independent?
 Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward
GNG
?
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2023/05/11/stakeholders-highlight-role-of-technology-in-digitalising-education-for-cognitive-learning-in-schools ? Yes No couldn't even find her name mentioned here ✘ No
https://ed.buffalo.edu/magazine/issues/fall-2021/salau.html No ~ Yes This is almost an interview about how great University of Buffalo's GSE program is and how it helped this lady in her job ✘ No
https://www.citypeopleonline.com/we-need-to-focus-on-educational-programs-that-help-graduates-develop-skills-dr-adetola-salau/ No Yes ~ ✘ No
https://www.womenspheremag.net/sphere-woman-of-the-month-opunimi-akinkugbe/ ~ Appearing on Forbes 30 Under 30 cannot make one notable exclusively... ~ ~ ~ Partial
https://womenofrubies.com/9to5chick-recognises-top-100-career-women-in-africa/ No apparently, a blog called "9to5 Chick" releases a list of people and Women of Rubies reprints it. ? ~ ✘ 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}}.

Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for the review. Can you please revisit the Vanguard article? Although part of it is an interview, it has a long intro written by the reporter. I believe that does apply to notability. Also, just because an article cites a press release does not mean that it is a complete copy or lacks review by a newspaper's staff. For example, in the articles mentioned, several have a byline and some some rewriting. Also, if the press release is from a governmental institution (which they are in this case), don't you think there is a different level of accountability and reliability? At least, I do not think it is fair to say that an announcement of a government appointment is a puff piece; rather this should be considered news. Rublamb (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it is a puff piece. I only said it is a press release; which is what it is. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with ReadingBeans' analysis of the sources. These are largely non-independent puff pieces. No evidence of meeting NPROF or GNG.
JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 20 December 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 Shackleton Fracture Zone. ✗plicit 14:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Natural delimitation between the Pacific and South Atlantic oceans by the Shackleton Fracture Zone

Natural delimitation between the Pacific and South Atlantic oceans by the Shackleton Fracture Zone (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 like a fork of Shackleton Fracture Zone with an overly complicated title which essentially repeats the same information. Unlikely that anyone would search for this title, seems like it can be deleted with no loss of information on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 14:08, 18 December 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. Consensus is for deletion. Meio2934 is new to Wikipedia so it’s understandable that they are not familiar with Wikipedia’s multitude of policies and guidance. For advice on Articles for Creation, ask at Articles for Creation help desk or one of the regulars there; for general advice, try the Teahouse. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maycon Devon

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

Appears to be a non-notable musical artist whose work has not achieved any measure of notability, despite the peacock prose in the article about his "innate talent" and "artistic prowess". Mixed in with links to his church and school are various minor mentions in low quality sources. A Google / Google News search didn't turn up anything meaningful. Alansohn (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 21:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I see your reply, and All I say is that there is no sense on deleting a page that still developing while still has information about who the article is talking about. Meio2934 (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
musicians. These are unrelated to the current state of the article or the existence of this kid's one song. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete - not even remotely close to passing MUSICBIO or GNG Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that I uderstand the Wikipedia policies about articles creation an criteria, I’ve moved the article for draft so in the mean time the draft can be edited without hurting the Wikipedia with non- notable articles. Meio2934 (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please stop moving it around, articles shouldn't be moved during an open AfD anyway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the point of a deletion discussion if the article is going to be deleted Anyways because it doesn’t meet “notability” criteria ?. Second, isn’t it easier to just move the article to draft and leave it there or something ?. And if the article is so bad why don’t speedy delete it ? Meio2934 (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was speedily deleted, but you just recreated it. Instead of speedying it again, letting this AfD run its course will help establish community consensus, which in itself is valuable. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have anything against my work ? Every article every draft I send for review you always reject and give any exactness of why it is being rejected. The draft that I sent of Benji Krol for example. I added 21 existent factual evidences of News articles listing the author’s names in each one of them. And I wrote again the whole article, and I sent it for review. And you rejected without even looking the changes I had made in the draft. The only you stated was how the draft had been rejected before. And when I sent you a message requesting you to analyze it right because I added news articles you did not responded. It is not my fault that the other editors didn’t added the right news sources. But I edited and I did. All I wanted was for someone to review and tell me why in the new circumstances of the already edited article, was rejected. Meio2934 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is for discussing whether the Devon article should be deleted or kept, not for airing your wider grievances with me or the AfC system. Feel free to drop by my talk page or the AfC Help Desk (but preferably not both), and we can discuss those matters there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you, I will Meio2934 (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Clearly fails
    WP:GNG by a mile. Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 19 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lowery

Daniel Lowery (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 the

biography-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 18 December 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 Early close, keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ SnowFire (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro-Roman Kingdom

AfDs for this article:
Mauro-Roman Kingdom (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 observed by another AFD earlier this year, this article is a hoax.

I am retracting this nomination as a result of the discussion below. Non-admin close should be fine. NotBartEhrman (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A major source for this article is a book chapter, "From Arzuges to Rustamids: State Formation and Regional Identity in the Pre-Saharan Zone", in Vandals, Romans and Berbers : New Perspectives on Late Antique North Africa. That chapter contains no mention of a "Mauro-Roman Kingdom". The city name "Altava," which is supposed to be the capital, appears in that article only as a city destroyed by the Vandals, and as one of the sources of inscriptions. Despite this, the article falsely describes this book chapter as naming "core administrative centers of the kingdom".

This editor has also gone into the articles of the figures which appear on the "king list" at the bottom of the page, and changed them to say things that don't appear in the sources. For instance, the article John (Mauro-Roman king) reads, "John ... was a Berber military leader and briefly King of the Mauro-Roman Kingdom following the death of his predecessor". However, the source being given as a citation for this statement, " Martindale 1992, pp. 643–644" describes him only as a "rebel leader (in Africa)" and states that the rebels allied under him "numbered one thousand, namely five hundred Romans, some eighty Huns, and the rest Vandals". There is no mention of any kingdom.

Finally, a Google Books search indeed reveals that this term has never been used by historians, which makes sense because no such kingdom has ever existed. NotBartEhrman (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC) (edited 19:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC))[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Africa, Algeria, and Morocco. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a hoax, it was asked to be renamed and the vote was keep. Oaktree b (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire previous discussion is grounded a misunderstanding of policy -- the discussion mentions similar sounding words in primary sources, but original research is not allowed on Wikipedia. There are no academic sources for this "kingdom" because it never existed. NotBartEhrman (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and make sure to rename this time: topic is clearly notable per previous AfD, but the current title is an OR invention and needs to be fixed—the previous AfD clearly highlighted this issue. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have a single example of this alleged kingdom appearing in scholarly literature? NotBartEhrman (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, see Grierson 1959; as "Regnum Maurorum et Romanorum", the apparent source of the article title, is just found on a coin, the article should be renamed to "Post-Roman Berber polities" or similar and rewritten to that effect. It is definitely rather bloated—I just removed a huge chunk of only tangentially-related information. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just so that everyone is on the same page in Grierson 1959, the coin claiming a regnum is mentioned in a paragraph which begins with the words: "The relationship between the Moorish chieftains and the Roman government was a curious one, since they regarded themselves as subjects of the emperor even when they were at war with him and engaged in ravaging imperial territory." The article does not claim that a kingdom actually existed. NotBartEhrman (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said previously, if a source failed verification, you tag it. That said, did you check all those that you tagged? Just checking to make sure you did before I go through them. M.Bitton (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did check the three sources that I tagged just now. Note also that the citation to Morcelli 1816 is
    WP:SYNTH, but I am not going to remove it just yet as the whole article needs to go. This is just in the one part of the article I'm looking at which is claiming a kingdom was established. NotBartEhrman (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: Yeah this isn't a hoax, it's just the conflation of many polities which emerged in post-Roman Mauretania into a single kingdom which doesn't seem to have had serious continuity by User:Ichthyovenator. Icthyovenator probably made this in good faith, but since Wikipedia is not for original historical scholarship, it isn't Icthyovenator's call to refer to this as a single kingdom. Alexschmidt711 (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while the Berber kingdom that was established according to Roman tradition is not very well understood, it did exist. If a reference failed verification, then it should be tagged. M.Bitton (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this kingdom did indeed exist, can you please provide me with a single citation that says so? NotBartEhrman (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @NotBartEhrman: Did you check all those sources that you tagged earlier? M.Bitton (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, none of them attest to the existence of a kingdom. I hope others are also looking for any sort of evidence, seeing as "Mauro-Roman Kingdom" gets zero relevant hits on Google Books. NotBartEhrman (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @NotBartEhrman: That's not what I asked. The sources are supposed to support what is attributed to them, that's all. Can you please confirm that they don't? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      They do not -- e.g. Merrills 2017, Chapter 4, makes reference to two distinct populations, but there is no discussion of "core administrative centers of the kingdom", that is entirely fabrication. NotBartEhrman (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In other words, what you're saying is that the sources that you tagged do not support what's attributed to them. I believe you, but I will double check for good measure. M.Bitton (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I just checked the first (starting with The core administrative centers of the kingdom ...) and apart from stating "core administrative centers" instead of "core of the state", I don't see what the issue is with it. @NotBartEhrman: am I missing something? M.Bitton (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @M.Bitton I think he is actually arguing against the existence of a centralized polity with his use of the term "dual state", as he's saying the Romani and Mauri created separate domains of authority. He states that the "formal administration" applies only to the urban areas, with militaries being paid on the other side of a frontier. Also, this article is not trying to establish the existence of any specific sovereign entity, but is making general statements about the devolution of authority (hence the reference to an inscription which refers "either to this polity or a similar one centred further to the west"). There is a long way to go from this to any "Kingdom of the Moors and Romans". NotBartEhrman (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Does the support supports the statement that you tagged? It's a yes or no question (just like the tag). If no, then please explain which part of it is not supported by the source. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It does not support the statement that there is a "kingdom" with "core administrative centers", no. Those statements are directly contradicted by the source being cited. NotBartEhrman (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I did mention that it states "core of the state" instead of "core administrative centers of the kingdom". Is that the only reason you tagged it? If so, why didn't you tag that specific part instead of tagging all of it? Come to think of it, why didn't you just correct it (since you read the source)? M.Bitton (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not believe anyone has ever claimed this kingdom existed in the real world (as opposed to one editor's fantasy world), so I am not going to correct the article which is grounded in the premise that it existed at one time. According to who? NotBartEhrman (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      In other words, you cannot justify the tag that you added. While I won't ask you any more questions (given the lack of replies), I will simply assume with good reason that your other tags are problematic. M.Bitton (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have shown that the citation is contradicting the claims being made. Is there a more appropriate way to precisely tag the incorrect statements? (edit: I've tried to use another template to highlight specific statements not found in the source.) NotBartEhrman (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have shown that your tag was inappropriate. Now, I have to spend the little time that I have dealing with the
      tag bombing. M.Bitton (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      Now I am not sure what I was meant to do, I came here to point out the general hoax and the fact that the article needs to be deleted, and you asked me to edit the article to identify specific misuse of references. I did so, and you said my tags weren't specific enough. Now I am trying to point to the specific word choices that have twisted the meaning of references to fabricate the fictional kingdom, but this is apparently tag bombing? NotBartEhrman (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think we've established that this isn't a hoax. But if there was never a Mauro-Roman Kingdom, what is this article about, exactly? A well-referenced OR/SYNTH about the polities of the area in that period? If the verifiable information on this page is already covered by Mauretania#Roman-Moorish_kingdoms, we can simply redirect this page to it and be done. Otherwise, we face the task of coming up with a notable entity which is (a) supported by the supplied references, and (b) can serve as a WP:COATRACK for the text--at least until we rewrite it, and then rename the page after that entity. Neither is an appealing solution. Owen× ☎ 16:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Clearly not a hoax, and it may not help that the person who's made the most extensive contributions recently (and tag-bombed it in at least two places, IMO) seems determined to show that it's a hoax. This article is in need of attention from someone versed in the materials covering the period, but I'm not convinced that every fact or characterization made is dubious. Some of the changes (for instance, changing the name to "Mauretania Caesariensis") seem to be contradicted by the sources I was able to locate quickly. It seems likely that PW would have something to say on this topic and the rulers mentioned. I note one objection raised was that someone whom the article refers to as a "king" is only referred to as a "strong ruler" in the cited source—that sounds like a quibble over titles rather than an objection to the underlying facts. My general impression is that these are a lot of small disagreements with the text of the article masquerading as an AfD. P Aculeius (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well said! Can we agree that the subject matter itself, under a better title, is notable? If so, wouldn't it be a good idea to draftify the page while working on reconciling the text with the sources until it is fit for main namespace? I get the sense that if named properly, what we're dealing with here is just a content dispute. Owen× ☎ 14:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I note one objection raised was that someone whom the article refers to as a "king" is only referred to as a "strong ruler" in the cited source—that sounds like a quibble over titles rather than an objection to the underlying facts."
    The rebel leader in question was a real person, but this article's creator has claimed without any evidence that he was a king in this fictional kingdom. This kingdom did not exist and no historian has ever claimed it existed. If you can find me a single historian claiming that a "Mauro-Roman Kingdom" existed, I will immediately retract this AFD. NotBartEhrman (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether they were "real" kings or fictional ones is irrelevant, what matters is that they are referred to as such in the reliable sources. The not very well understood kingdoms did exist and here's a source that should help you retract the AFD. M.Bitton (talk) 14:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I see the problem here,
    your article and mine as it is the original page creator. Owen× ☎ 15:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    @M.Bitton Thank you very much for finding this source -- seriously, I felt like I was on crazy pills here. As promised, I retract my call to delete the article. I also retract my accusation of a hoax and my accusation of ill-will towards the article creator(s), as it seems their original research was not a malicious distortion of academic sources; rather, they were simply unaware of a number of academic sources which explicitly mention a kingdom, which can be found in Google Scholar by searching for the article you linked to, under different names than the one given in the article's title. For example, here is "From Periphery to Core in Late Antique Mauretania" which describes "the kingdom of Masuna at Altava". I will revert my addition of tags and add in these two sources as a starter towards improving the article, since the sources you found to attest to multiple kings. NotBartEhrman (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. M.Bitton (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but perhaps rename -- The article is clearly a genuine one with a lot of references. The title used by the kings was king of the Mauri and Romani or we might say king of the Moors and Romans. This is a title, not the name of a kingdom. Furthermore the Latin for king (rex, regis) is closely related to the verb rego, I rule, so that some of the objections do not hold water. Whether a person is a ruler or a rebel will depend on the point of view of the speaker. This was former Roman territory, where a Roman might well have regarded an independent local ruler as a rebel. This may be compared to the description of the subRoman rulers of Britain as tyrants, persons whose names we often do not even know. If NotBartEhrman really knows about this subject, perhaps he can revert the changes to related articles that should not have been made and improve this article. Sub-Roman Mauritania would be a possible title. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: seeing as the nomination has been withdrawn, and no one else here seems to call for deletion, I think we can close this AfD. Debate about renaming the article can continue on its Talk page. Owen× ☎ 15:35, 19 December 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 12:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Lenya

Apache Lenya (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. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 10:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Greenman (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:28, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom JM (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails
WP:NSOFT Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 18 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Malta women's national baseball team

Malta women's national baseball team (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)

Most likely this team does not exist and has never existed. WBSC Rankings do not have Malta and never had it, which means it has not played any official game in the last 10 years. This detailed map of all active women's baseball teams in Europe has nothing in Malta. The only mention of a women's team at the Malta Baseball and Softball Association website refers to the fastpitch softball team. There is this no evidence Malta women's national baseball team has ever existed — NickK (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. So non-notable that it is unknown if it even exists. Probably Malta national baseball team should be nominated for deletion as well. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The men's team at least exists, participated in international competitions and has some historical media coverage. Of course it did not win anything major because it's Malta but it definitely exists and has decent coverage — NickK (talk) 17:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Completely and utterly non-notable, even if it has ever existed, which no evidence exists to show that it ever did. User:Let'srun 14:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Two of the three sources are up for sale. The first source makes no indication that this could even be a team. As such, this seems to lack any sources, let alone any secondary sources. Wozal (talk) 14:57, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – It is not even possible to ascertain whether this national team exists. Svartner (talk) 10:56, 22 December 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! 05:48, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo Tanasyuk

Pavlo Tanasyuk (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 have read all the sources and discovered that they are all based on interviews or citations of Panasyuk. I found one credible source, but it again heavily relies on Panasyuk's citations or focuses on the Spacebit company. Another source is citing the Ukrainian Wikipedia (thus it’s automatically depreciated), which is utterly funny and not a reliable way to cover a biographical article. In summary, the page doesn't pass WP:ANYBIO but feels like WP Mill Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what you mean by "WP Mill"? I googled it and all I found is
WP:MILLS about windmills. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
my first thought was
WP:MIL but that doesn't seem to make sense either since it's a wikiproject. JM (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@Deltaspace42 @JM2023 it's this stuff I guess: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:MILL&redirect=no 2603:7000:5041:2AE0:C0D4:40E3:B743:F190 (talk) 13:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you! Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree that we have lack of reliable sources which mention Pavlo Tanasyuk directly, not his Spacebit company. But how can I agree on
WP:MIL, while this person is first ukrainian who organized british-ukrainian lunar mission? It's a local fame at least. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
In the article I can only see that "the British company Spacebit has developed a lunar rover", not that Pavlo Tanasyuk organized the whole lunar mission, am I missing something? Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I not insist. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to create page from scratch so now it looks like WP:ONEEVENT. I as the author of the page aprreciate your nomination to deletion. I won't lose my Article's progress so please vote Move instead of Delete, thx. I hope Dirubii Olchoglu will help to improve Draft article and find more third-party significant coverage reliable sources. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 12:14, 18 December 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. Between this likely being a G5 candidate (not many other edits) and no substantive objection to deletion, this debate has led to a delete outcome. Daniel (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kumar Gaurav (entrepreneur)

Kumar Gaurav (entrepreneur) (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 crypto businessman with many details not related to him which makes an illusion of his importance. I've removed blogs, deprecated crypto websites, and sites like 'The Org,' which are often paid databases and have nothing to do with reliable sources. The remaining sources have been thoroughly revised, and I didn't find none really reliable one with a focus on the person. Many paragraphs in the article give undue weight and should be removed. It's quite clear, the page is promotional with no reliable sources with some sources masquerading as reliable or as related to the person. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the page I can agree on some sentences. And I even removed unsourced content after you removed a few references. You know, it's hard to write the page from scratch so now it looks like WP:ONEEVENT, because this person was involved as a CEO of the company which was hacked in 2020. Probably page can be moved to draft to further improvement, where you can help to find more third-party significant coverage reliable sources. I appreciate you. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the non-existant (yet) Cashaa article. All sourcing is about the platform, not about this person. Or he's talking about the platform.Oaktree b (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway it will be WP:ONEEVENT so better to leave it to the draft and wait till someone else show interest to the subject if another one event with reliable sources show up. Antonio Vinzaretti (talk) 13:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll let someone else assess whether there have been sufficient edits by uninvolved editors to preclude G5, but the creator has been blocked as a sock. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Masckarpone Star Mississippi 17:28, 22 December 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quintin King

Quintin King (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 sure if this article passes

WP:GNG (specifically "significant coverage"), ie whether the sources cited are non-trivial mentions of this person, so seeking the opinion of others. I don't have an opinion either way J2m5 (talk) 10:55, 18 December 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 an accidental nomination‎. Owen× ☎ 13:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shackleton Fracture Zone

Shackleton Fracture Zone (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 like a fork of Shackleton Fracture Zone with an overly complicated title which essentially repeats the same information. Unlikely that anyone would search for this title, seems like it can be deleted with no loss of information on en.wiki JMWt (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oof I meant to nominate Natural delimitation between the Pacific and South Atlantic oceans by the Shackleton Fracture Zone rather than Shackleton Fracture Zone. Sorry.. JMWt (talk) 10:46, 18 December 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 Windsor chair. While some rationales argued to "keep or merge" or others to "delete or merge", the merge solution appears to be the prevailing consensus. Aoidh (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Captain's chair

Captain's chair (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)

Very few refs on the page, one is currently a dictionary and the other is a search on eBay. As far as I can see, whilst there are plenty of references to a "captain's chair" there doesn't appear to be any general acceptance of what it is beyond being a chair the the captain of a ship/aircraft/spaceship sits in. May the sources exist but I can't find them - if nobody else can, I suggest

WP:TNT until someone can find sources to write a coherent and sourced page. JMWt (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep. As the text makes clear, I think, a Captain's Chair isn't "a chair the the captain of a ship/aircraft/spaceship sits in", but a specific type of chair of the general Windsor type, though larger and often more ornate. The term is standardly used in the furniture and antiques trade. I hadn't realised that footnotes were necessary for a Wikipedia article (I'm still unclear as to why, if references are provided at the end). If a dictionary definition isn't sufficient to verify the meaning of a term, I'm not sure what is... The ebay reference indicates the fact that the term is standardly used — there are many other antiques and furniture sites that confirm this, but I thought that just one would suffice (especially as it includes a reasonably good account of the type).

"until someone can find sources to write a coherent and sourced page". If you could point out any incoherencies, I can attempt to rectify them. If the dictionary definition and relevant commercial sites don't count as adequate sources, could you let me know what sort of sources would count, and I can see what I can do.

The page was, peculiarly, a redirect to an article on a piece of exercise equipment, which is certainly not the primary use of the term. Indeed, of the three uses, this one is most common, followed by ""a chair the the captain of a ship/aircraft/spaceship sits in", followed as a distant third by the exercise equipment. Bibliosporias (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with
Windsor Chair.
This [23] at 167 has a brief discussion of the Captain's chair. And this[24] has a nice description of the chair (but not a picture).
I'm puzzled by the deletion rationale. Reading the article, it's clear it's not describing a chair for captains for vessels.
Captain's Chair, BTW, is certainly a name for a piece of gym equipment used for for leg raises, or a leg raise exercise. Not sure if it's more common or less common, but it came up immediately when I searched. Oblivy (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Your source 1 is not just brief, it's a passing sentence without a other detail whatsoever. The second simply says that it is another name for a Windsor chair. I don't understand how you think this is substantial coverage in Reliable Sources to satisfy the
WP:GNG nor how this is in any sense a rationale for !keep rather than a redirect somewhere else.. JMWt (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That's fair. I guess I was trying to be helpful in providing additional sources rather than claiming I'd found the key to overcome GNG objections, and at some point "comment" became "keep". This[25] is more substantial but I'm not logged in so I can't see if it goes beyond a single page). It's an extremely common category of chair, often found in pubs and libraries, probably because it's more sturdy than a spindle-back Windsor. I know that's very
WP:ILIKEIT but I think common sense doesn't call for deletion even if we can't find an essay-length description. Oblivy (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Well that's how we assess notability on en.wiki. If there are no RS we can use for verification per
WP:V the uncited information can be removed. If none of the content reflects published information, we delete the page. That's literally how it works. JMWt (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
As true as that is, it's also policy that policies and guidelines should be ignored if they prevent us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I made my vote, I think I'll stand by it. Oblivy (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A DICDEF, with no other sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd never thought of EBay as being a dictionary. I could have provided similar references to other dictionaries, like Chesterfield, but I don't suppose that that would have helped. Bibliosporias (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DICDEF is a policy of en.wikipedia which states that wikipedia is not a dictionary. Referencing other dictionaries is not going to help if there is nothing to say on the page beyond a dictionary definition. And if there are no sources that go into further depth that can be found, we can't include additional unsourced material. JMWt (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge to Chair#Types of chairs or Windsor chair. Dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and Collins define it by its construction, so it is a thing, but there doesn't seem to be enough to warrant a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As I noted above, merge is a viable alternative to keep. May I ask if there's some reason not to merge into Windsor chair instead? It would fit better in the more specific article - as it is, there's no discussion of spindle-back chairs in the chair article now and this is a subtype. Oblivy (talk) 09:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because none of the dictionary definitions mention its connection to a Windsor. However, I've modified my lvote. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:43, 21 December 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. Daniel (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Lesbian Gay Bi Transgender Community Center of Metropolitan St. Louis

Lesbian Gay Bi Transgender Community Center of Metropolitan St. Louis (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 article has no reliable secondary sources and the organization is not generally notable. Fails

WP:ORG. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. The overwhelming consensus is that this article shouldn't be retained and should be merged selectively into this target. Daniel (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Folklore

List of accolades received by Folklore (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

Ippantekina (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Jonathan Deamer (talk) 12:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Revising to neutral having had a helpful discussion on this exact topic kindly pointed out to me. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - to the parent awards article or the parent album article. If it's too big for either of those locations, then we really need to think about whether all of the awards are notable too - some trimming may be in order. Theres really not much (any?) precedent for an album having its own awards spin-off. It's overkill. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What on earth are these comments? "Need to think about whether all of the awards are notable"? Are you kidding? Why the hell are you applying what is meant for entire article topics to individual details. Individual details do not have to be notable. Look at the citations and list. They are ALL to reliable independent sources. There is not one accolade list with a [citation needed] tag. And "overkill" based on what? Users complained about it being overkill on the main article, which is why this split happened. For a separate article, this is perfect. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:07, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you cool it with the
    WP:BLUDGEONing a bit? I don't understand what you're so baffled about. This is no different than the routine debates on whether or not a song article should be spun out from an album article. Completely valid editorial decisions are being given here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    No bludgeoning is going here. Users are giving different comments and I am giving different responses. That is just discourse. Can you cite me any "completely valid" argument for the merge votes? With due respect I am not seeing them. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a very short list. 14 awards. Single lines of content. And there's actually two different targets where it could be placed. If you can't tell how this fits into multiple aspects of
    WP:MERGEREASON I don't know how to help you. Sergecross73 msg me 15:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Are you even reading the full page? That is obviously wrong. There are also the critical accolades, which are 82. 82 + 14 = 96, basic math. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:38, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The critics list is collapsible and is closed at first, so I do not blame you if you did not notice right away. But at the same time, you should know better. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:39, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you are two numbers off the awards list. There are 16 awards, not 14 awards. Not a big difference, but I just want the participants' available info to be as accurate as possible. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 15:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The 14 was in reference to what was visible. The 96 is exactly what I was talking about when I said we should evaluate if all of these are truly noteworthy to document. Sergecross73 msg me 16:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the publications listed are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles to link to. There you go, evaluation finished. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 16:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're both experienced editors - don't waste both of our time acting like it's that simple. Mainstream commercial releases could have 25-50 RS reviews. Are we compelled to add every single one to review table templates? And include everyone single one in prose? And if it's too crowded, do we spin them out to Critical reception of Taylor Swift's ''Folklore'' album articles? Before you decide to waste our time further, the correct answer is "No". Sergecross73 msg me 16:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Serge, I am being extremely
    nice here
    when I say the following:
    • (1) Ippantekina nominating this for AFD in the first place was a waste of all of our times. I did not want to have this talk either, but here we are, so lecture Ippantekina on waste, not me.
    • (2) This is not debatable. This is how Wikipedia works: Yes, we absolutely, 100%, without-a-question-or-doubt, do! Per
      WP:WEIGHT
      . And frankly, there is not enough of them.
    • (3) If there was that much coverage to represent, there would be only one critical reception article of the album, not articles, so don't be ridiculous.
    • (4) What on earth is it with experienced users like you, who at least know a lot of policy, promoting what would essentially being giving
      WP:UNDUE
      to a small fraction of sources?
    User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and almost forget. Ratings of review are absolutely not the same as rankings of year-end lists of the best albums of the entire year. I should not have to explain why. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:25, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is absolutely nothing that compels us to list off every single "best of" award every publication rattles off for a given artist. That is an extremely flawed application of WEIGHT/UNDUE. Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every time a publication ranks an album or song one of the best of the year, that counts as WP:SIGCOV. Not covering that sigcov means Wikipedia has failed at its job. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You can not just discredit the reliability of the source by using specific rhetoric: "every publication rattles off for a given artist." This further proves my point
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT is driving your argumentation. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    This is awful policy interpretation. I think the only thing we're going to agree on is that experienced editors will continue to disagree with you. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not interpretation, it is the truth. It is how this works. Leave or write on Simple English Wikipedia if you do not like it. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 21:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not only an interpretation, but an exceedingly rare interpretation. I've edited in music and video games for coming up on 15 years and I rarely see editors make such outlandish assertions in either content area. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a creator. None of the critical accolades are in the article Ippantekina mentioned, so this is not a CFORK, and frankly, that awards and nominations list has more than 600 entries and could be split. If all of these were too much to list in the main topic article, then newsflash, they should be in a separate article. There are more than an hundred of these awards and accolades for this album alone, cited to reliable sources. They are all from publications with editorial standards, and deserve to be represented for proper
WP:WEIGHT. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 01:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Ippantekina (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Facepalm* Can you at least know what you are talking about before you type out what you are going to type out?:
  • (1) Users, can you please, for the love of god, stop using
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT
    as a rationale? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, meaning we let all independent reliable sources do the writing for us. Who cares about your personal interests or some arbitrary metric of what you think is "needed"? I guarantee you if we followed that, the article count on this whole site would be zero.
  • (2) The discussion was for lists of year-end rankings being too much in articles mainly about the album that are already long with other details, not whether every year-end ranking was worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia at all (including on a separate article), so it means nothing here. This is not opinion: we should make separate lists simply because it is too much for the article.
  • (3) Individual details do not have to be notable. The topic has to be notable for an article to be written on it, so your claim that "not all critical lists are notable" means nothing.
  • (4) All those reliable sources, which are many, run year-end rankings of the best albums. Any source from an industry source with editorial standards of verifiability and expertise IS "worthy" of inclusion, and anyone who says other does not know what Wikipedia is.
User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
Ippantekina (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Excuse me? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
Ippantekina I hadn't seen this discussion; thanks for pointing out. That's a helpful consensus that it's difficult to disagree with, so changing my "keep" response above on this basis. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge to List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift. Raymond3023 (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If kept it needs to be renamed, as the album is not the primary topic for Folklore and the current title makes little sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wut? You are not making sense. How does the title not make sense? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't make sense as in when someone who isn't a Taylor swift fan looks at this they'll think they're talking about something like rewards received by "The Odyssey" or something. Additionally, you are fighting against the consensus of over 15 editors, who all agreed that it was unnecessary to list every single award/accolade that something won. Industrial Insect (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) You have not been on this site long enough then if you are confused. Look at this search and come back to me later.
      • (2) I keep having to repeat myself because users here repeatedly say the wrong thing after debunking it. I am not "fighting" against consensus of the existence of a list like this. The consensus was that it was overbearing for the size of the main album article to list every accolade, not if those accolades meet some bullshit, not-based-in-policy methodology of "needed".
      • (3) Even if that was the consensus, so what? They are objectively wrong.
      User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you actively suggesting it's acceptable to ignore consensus you don't agree with? Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you honestly suggesting any of the arguments in that discourse were valid? "Waaahhhh, it is too much effort for me to read"? "Album ratings are as significant as year-end rankings"? "Publication year-end lists are the same as clickbait"? Serge, this is not "consensus I don't agree with". This is Wikipedia's principles being decimated in front our of eyes. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:21, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Cite me the guidelines where content can be removed because a user was not literate enough to read it, and I will gladly change my !vote. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      No consensus is being ignored by making a separate list. They were talking about lists within album articles. Can you stop being wrong so I do not have to sound like a broken record? User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:36, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't say any of that...? Sergecross73 msg me 20:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      (1) I don't understand what the link you provided me proves. Yeah, other "list of accolade" articles exist (
      Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
      ), but I was talking about the song name being confusing.
      (2) We are saying that a merge is needed. Your only argument is that the article would be too long. The consensus is to limit the number of accolades mentioned in the article to solve this.
      (3) I don't think you have any right to call me an amateur when you think you can ignore consensus because you don't agree with it. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me correct myself. I thought you were confused by the wording of "received by". I did not initially interpret you being worried the title was so vague it could refer to Greek literature. Sorry about that. However, this is still ridiculous because the name Folklore is italicized in the title, meaning it is referring to a specific full work titled Folklore.
      User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, can you not dishonestly represent what I am saying? My arguments are abso-fucking-lutely not only that I think the article would be too long. It is that all the coverage for the accolades are reliable and deserve representation, regardless if a person who did not finish middle school care about it. You are all throwing obvious WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and calling me unable to disagree civilly for calling them out, and it is absolutely disgusting. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Anything noteworthy can be put on the main Folklore article. Pamzeis (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Can you explain further on what WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEVERYTHING has to do with this? I see a lot of users who cite WP:INDISCRIMINATE to remove reliably-sourced, cite content, but do not go past that. I could nominate every single article for deletion on this website under "Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE" and it would make just as much sense. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    To put it another way, you can not just say info should be removed because we are an not an indiscriminate collection of information and expect me to buy it right away. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 14:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Equally open to a redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, nominator. Bit of a though exercise. If I nominated the entire
WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information, especially not artists only teenagers are into", would you just civilly disagree with me, think I have a different edit philosophy and move on with your day, or would you accuse me of editing in bad faith and call me a moron? I would love to know. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 18:33, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
If you'd like to muse about hypothetical
WP:POINT violations with the nominator, they have a talk page for that. This has nothing to do with this AFD. Sergecross73 msg me 18:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It does, because all of this is based on a discussion where that hypothetical is suitable. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 19:02, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. If this means the bloated reception list needs to be trimmed, then so be it. WP:ASPECT means we have weight specific coverage by how important it is with respect to coverage as a whole. There's no way every single one of these accolades is noteworthy enough to mention, for the same reasons we don't have articles covering every government leader's canned condolence statement for every natural disaster.
JoelleJay (talk) 03:46, 21 December 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 09:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Modestus Fernando

Modestus Fernando (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)

Neither the cited sources nor anything I could find in a

GNG: all are non-independent and/or lack in-depth coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:52, 18 December 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 10:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Music Summit

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

Subject does not meet the

WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1st Wave.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:37, 18 December 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 05:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Alexandra Töpfner

Alexandra Töpfner (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 unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a Hungarian women's handballer, to meet

WP:GNG. The third source in the article, from TEOL, is a tournament recap with four sentences of coverage of the subject. Everything else that came up in my searches were passing mentions in squad lists and match reports. JTtheOG (talk) 05:27, 18 December 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 05:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Saint Vincent and the Grenadines relations

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

There is very little real relations between the 2 countries. The 3 sources cited from Ministry of Foreign affairs are all dead and in any case primary. This source, this one and this one all mention St Vincent and Grenadines in 1 line and do not constitute indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Georgia (country), and Caribbean. LibStar (talk) 04:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Yet another in the fad of making a standalone article for every combination of two countries. There is no coverage of this relationship as a relationship, only casual mentions of potential interactions between the two nations. All sources are
    WP:PRIMARY
    . Cheers,
  • Delete per nom. AryKun (talk) 14:39, 19 December 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, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Make A Difference Now

Make A Difference Now (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 supported solely by primary sources and databases. I could not find independent sources discussing the organization. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the history was a problem from this article and its already removed, And i am try to figure out to make the article follow the guidelines Hussein m mmbaga (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is sourced from a website that belongs to the org. Not enough sources. killer bee  05:44, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Completely and utterly non-notable with no secondary sources available. User:Let'srun 16:50, 18 December 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 02:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Fatimata Tamboura

Fatimata Tamboura (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)

Poorly sourced BLP with no indication of notability. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (2013, 2015, 2017, etc.) Fails

WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 02:10, 18 December 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. While there has been a late shift in sentiment that points to 'keep' due to changes to the article during this debate, the changes to the article actually make it really hard for me to assess whether this should be closed as 'keep' or 'no consensus'. This is because some comments were made prior to changes, others after the changes, and the relevance of those made prior to the changes are hard to assess.

What I do know for sure is there is no consensus to delete here in this discussion. I've elected to come down on the side of no consensus for the simple reason that if this needs to be explored again (referencing the 'new' version of the article) in the new year, it can be done earlier than if I was to close as 'keep'. Daniel (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Go Getters

The Go Getters (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

SIGCOV. I have been unable to find additional sources from searching Google and TWL databases. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Their Swedish article has zero sources and almost no biographical information, making it even less useful than this one. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:02, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They've had a long career and probably a small regional following, but I can find no
    reliable and significant sources on the band in Swedish or English, nor have their albums received any pro reviews that I can find. They have a few of what appear to be magazine articles, already cited, but the nominator is correct on how they are unreliable and probably paid promotional services. All else to be found is from the band's social media and occasional fan blogs. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
(18 days later...) I am changing my vote to Undecided due to the improvements made to the article since the nomination. The folks below found some sources but I am not convinced that they add up to
significant coverage for this band, though my stance has softened and Admins can judge the other votes below. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Just wanted to let you know @Doomsdayer520 that Julle has added additional sources; see below. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Voorts and Darling for chiming in while I was absent. @Wikirapguru severely over-reacted to my comment about the band's Swedish article. This person told us to look at the Swedish article as if that could inform this discussion, so I did. I said absolutely nothing about deleting or keeping the Swedish article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it a severe over-reaction, just an inexperienced editor who wrote an article in good faith and doesn't quite understand how deletion decisions work across different language versions of Wikipedia. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above the sourcing issues outlined. even if it was notable for the Swedish Wikipedia (which it clearly seems to not be, given the article there has zero sources), the band has nothing reliable on them, just a small cult following and a few seemingly promotional articles. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 18:51, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't read too much into the lack of sources on Swedish Wikipedia. We don't spend as much time cleaning up old articles if they seem plausibly notable, given the much smaller number of editors – whereas sources are required for new articles, it's easier for an old unsourced article to survive on Swedish Wikipedia than on English Wikipedia, which means that people spend less focus sourcing them even if sources could be found.
    (It's not unimportant! It's just that with one editor for every fifty editors on English Wikipedia, there are more articles to handle per editor. Sometimes lack of sources says more about Swedish Wikipedia than about the topic.)
    In this particular case, I'm hopeful but not certain there are good enough sources to save the article. I've started by adding a full-page article from a few years back as a reference. /Julle (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    fair enough, I'll keep here then; good work. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 00:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a few hundred articles about them or mentioning them in the Swedish newspaper archive which covers most of the recent years (Retriever Mediearkivet). It's missing most from their early days. I've started adding something. /Julle (talk) 02:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that we don't have access to the article that you just added, and if you can find a few more sources providing significant coverage, would you mind providing a brief description of each source? Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has experienced a lot of editing activity since this nomination. Can editors review the additions and see if they make a significant difference?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of sourcing, Wide Open Country and Ameripolitan are lists of award winners, not SIGCOV. The Bettajive Review is SIGCOV, but the website itself is an SPS. However, the people who run it are formerly journalists, so it's kinda reliable but there's no indication that they have a fact-checker or editor on staff. "Västeråsband kan få pris på världsgala" has no link to it and it's in Swedish, so I can't evaluate. Hopefully by the end of this relisting period @Julle can add some more Swedish sources and do some kind of source analysis so that other editors can evaluate whether those sources establish notability. If that doesn't happen, given that Julle thinks that the band might plausibly be notable, I'd be okay with draftify-ing this. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 17:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've not had time to dig further into this (too much to do given the upcoming holidays, unfortunately).
The article I've added is a one-page newspaper article from Vestmanlands Läns Tidning about the band when they were nominated to the award mentioned in the article. While I think the coverage is relevant for our assessment, I don't know much about the award itself.
In short, I hope it might be worth digging further if anyone with the right access has the time to do so, but as of writing this I think the sourcing is a bit weak in the article. /Julle (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Julle. Since you don't have time to dig through sources, unless someone else does, my !vote is draftify. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Per improvements I think the article meets WP:GNG. Good work. also just because the original sources were in Swedish, it does not equal non notable or less important. English sources are good now.BabbaQ (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to note that I wasn't implying that Swedish sources couldn't be used. I was just stating that I couldn't evaluate that particular source since I don't speak Swedish and don't know how to find it. That said, I still don't think that the current sources provide SIGCOV per my analysis above. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:17, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that
good faith but I'm also suspicious about whether those apparent sources will really come together. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:10, 22 December 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. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandro Goiano (footballer, born 1978)

Sandro Goiano (footballer, born 1978) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

WP:SIGCOV. More evidence is needed that there are offline sources. Otherwise, I suggest delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete, per Jogurney's excellent analysis. The Globo piece is written in a primary, narrative style, from the perspective of the subject, and is based on an interview. That's not enough independence to stand alone as the sole substantial source.
JoelleJay (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found another interview of the athlete, in addition to a printed publication of Jornal Lance! (São Paulo) talking about the players celebration in Arapiraca, summarizing the athletes careers up to that point in 2002. The sources add up while the arguments for deletion are based only on the way the GloboEsporte interview was carried out. Svartner (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:56, 18 December 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! 00:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

KQPS-LD

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

Nothing is here, or elsewhere for that matter, to show this meets the

WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:04, 18 December 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 Barbie video games. Liz Read! Talk! 00:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie Fashion Show: An Eye for Style

Barbie Fashion Show: An Eye for Style (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)

Besides the Jeuxvideo review included in the article, I didn't find reliable secondary sources. QuietCicada - Talk 00:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: page 300 of this non-English book appears to have a few sentences covering the game, and

Left guide (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I can't access the book, but the IGN's article is just a republished press release from the publisher, so a
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Left guide (talk) 09:12, 18 December 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) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Fox McCloud

Fox McCloud (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)

Fox is a really well known and popular character, but Fox has very little actual discussion about him. There's some sources ranking him as one of the greatest characters and some Smash sources, but nothing actually discussing Fox specifically. I did a search source and they all discuss the series more than Fox. There were a few scholar hits, but they seem more about Krystal compared to Fox than anything actually about Fox. This article feels like a borderline case where everyone knows Fox, but there's very little actual sourcing for him. It's a shame, but I feel the best AtD would be a merge to the character list, as there is some decent stuff in here sourcing wise, just not enough for an article per se. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article long and well-sourced. One of the video game icons of Nintendo.
SouthParkFan2006 (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nominator While I feel the sourcing is still weak, it seems like there's some sources I missed that let it just barely squeak past SIGCOV. Definitely will need something of an overhaul in the future but that's not within the scope of AfD. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:15, 18 December 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 is numerically evenly split, but the keeps are very weak; many contain nothing more than an assertion of significance, and even those arguments that have a basis in policy don't explicitly provide sources in support. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Foek

Anton Foek (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:1E situation. Overall, I think this page should be deleted. Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I checked the Dutch newspapers and yes, his 1973 kidnapping was covered. There is also an interview here. And this is what Project Censored, once at Sonoma University, published from Foek. Not a lot to work with but yes, I could give it a try. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Dutch paper say, this "kidnapping" was due to his own stupidity of pretending to be someone else. Of course he was arrested. Meaning there is no political notability in the event. - Altenmann >talk 02:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:BLP1E. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I clarified the so-called kidnapping incident, which really was an illegal detention, and provided new and better references. I also added the reference about the article that was included in the 1998 top-25 censored articles. I corrected his name. He has a chinese last name, Jie Sam, which is common in Suriname. With these new citations I believe there is (just) enough independent, substantive coverage to establish his notability. I vote keep. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'm still not seeing notability even on these additional sources, as it seems a
WP:BLP1E situation where any notability rests on that single event of illegal detention (which, while kind of amusing, doesn't seem of any historical interest). That said, many thanks for your efforts to improve the article; it looks like the discussion is erring on the side of keep so it's good that the article is in much better shape than it was. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
You are making the debate about you and that is a mistake. These are your reactions to some of the keeps on this page: I'm still not persuaded, I may have missed something, I'm still not seeing notability, I am still not persuaded. You can rest assured that everyone here read your intro, examined the article, and looked for sources before drawing their own conclusions. Either the intro did not convince or Anton Foek (who this page is about) is too notable for deletion. Or both. In any case, making this debate about your personal position in all of this is not how AfDs should work. We did consider your deletion rationale. Sometimes it is the language gap. Often the fact that folks do not look at Delpher. But that doesn't matter. The debate here is on the article, not for persuading a nominator. Next time better! gidonb (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I came across like I was trying to persuade you of my position. It was more that I was thinking of withdrawing the nomination if I'd missed some sources. Obviously people aren't persuaded by my rationale and that's totally fine. Cheers, Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was me who was a bit fierce. That said, the impression you left is less that you try to convince others and more that you insert yourself in the middle of the debate. It doesn't matter if you withdraw or not. When you become really selective in nominating articles, you will feel more at peace at your AfDs! gidonb (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice! I'll keep that in mind for next time. :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 03:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! gidonb (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely wonderful! I hope that Nlwiki one day will rise to the level where it fully deserves such quality by you and a few other excellent contributors that write there! gidonb (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as some of these Keeps are very Weak and don't seem to go very deep into evaluating the content and sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I checked all the sources mentioned and found some more, writing the nlwiki page. A couple of independent, substantive sources show that Mr. Foek made a relevant contribution to shaping the Dutch public opinion regarding Latin America in the 1970s. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:VICTIM
(of a Chile kidnapping), which states a BLP1E article should be kept only if:
The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role.
The coverage of this event did not extend in time, therefore the article fails
WP:VICTIM
.
And as for his career as a journalist, none of the sources talk about it in any depth. बिनोद थारू (talk) 05:23, 26 December 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 00:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zayn Khan

Zayn Khan (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indicator of wp:notability under gng or sna, 2 sentence Stub content reflect this including lack of GNG sources. North8000 (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no clear indication, I don't see it passing GNC by any proper source except some mentions of name, needs further citations حقائق کا پتہ لگانے والا (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR". Please be specific.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:35, 18 December 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 00:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony Hill, Pennsylvania

Harmony Hill, Pennsylvania (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)

Part of a series of spam GNIS articles. It does not even fulfill the "legal recognition" requirement of

WP:GEOLAND. It's just a road called "Harmony Hill Rd". बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. बिनोद थारू (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a road. It is, which should come as no surprise, a hill.

    The GNIS record says that it had to involve some geologic maps to account for the name. On the old topographic maps, "Harmony Hill" always labels the 485 feet (148 m) hill. Most of them put the name above the hill, except for some which put it to the bottom-right. And through a GNIS comedy of errors this apparent unexplainable labelling of a cross-roads had to be accounted for, by the database importer who did not see the hill next to the letter "H".

    There's a nature reserve on one side of the hill, with a cycle trail, which turns up in some fishing guides, and the Harmony Hill Road going past the hill on another side. Other than that, this is a pretty undocumented hill. Of course it is not documented anywhere as a "community", and this article is another Wikipedia geographic lie. It is a hill.

    Uncle G (talk) 16:21, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Uncle G. Not a populated place, and the only sources are GNIS and a GNIS mirror, not reliable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Another GNIS cock-up in which they looked at someone else's map instead of their own and transmuted the name of the hill into a spurious town. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 18 December 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_December_18&oldid=1192074533"