Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 March 16

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. Concerns about this article can be addressed through editing improvements. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Desborough (game designer)

James Desborough (game designer) (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. Sources are either blogs, press releases, or from the subject. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Games. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:ANYBIO criterion 1, major award winner. And yes, Origins awards counts. Jclemens (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Jclemens, I figured WaPo was a safe enough bet, but do you think anything else that was removed from the article in these edits was worth keeping? BOZ (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Eek, I hadn't seen all that. I don't see that the WaPo article directly bears on this subject, but I've stayed as far away from GamerGate as possible. It does look like there's enough edit warring over the article to suggest that an SPI might be in order, but I'll let someone more familiar with the topic report it if appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per comments from Jclemens. BOZ (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, As this needs more citations. CastJared (talk) 07:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—This article is well-cited, and shouldn't have the "Needs Citation" template on it.

Further, those citing BLP are misrepresenting what it says. Citing information in a neutral manner isn't forbidden by BLP. Simply stating that the author was dropped from publishing platforms isn't "contentious", it's a simple statement of already verified source.

Literally, Don't Bite the Newbies. This new user really was being very fervent in their editing of a decade-old topic, and appears to be trying in Good Faith to present a balance of information. Going after the new contributor by using reporting violations the new user didn't even know they were committing, and calling *them* the disruptive one is just horribly, horribly poor form.

The repeated wholesale reversion of other editor's work with little or no explanation, based on minor issues with format, method, or knowledge of how to edit seems a whole lot more like just punitive hunting down of the editor. They literally went after the newbie going out of their way to have them banned when it's possible they didn't know where to even see the discussions about it.

From all appearances in the Edit History, this nothing more than a rude experienced editor who was Edit Warring with a newbie wanting to delete the newbie's page/work.

The proposer, in this case is **literally** the person causing the problem and Edit Warring. That's not only a conflict of interest, it's not Good Faith, and shouldn't be permitted.

This seems more like Deletionism, wanting to remove an article about a person with a bad reputation and who may be seen as a bad actor in the industry, and

There's not a valid reason arguing against Notability. The subject literally has major industry awards.

IcarusATB (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved my reply to your talk page, other than to reiterate my request that you strike your personal attacks.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BubbaJoe123456 Is the edit summary on this revision accurate? If so, please explain why you believe it to be accurate. If not, please explain why it's not. Regardless, I'll note that this is the last edit prior to you nominating this article for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 02:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per all editors said above. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️^{Let's Talk !} 14:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Looking into this myself, I actually find that the article subject meets
  WP:GNG. If the article subject failed notability criteria, there would be reasonable grounds for deletion. However, notability is established as I’ve explained above. Shawn Teller (talk) 23:05, 23 March 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 encourage editors to follow up with this Keep decision to address opinions that this article should be split. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of pagans

List of pagans (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)

"Pagan" can technically refer to literally every person that isn't Christian or Jewish according to the Christian definition. What this article seems to be attempting to do is list every single individual who belonged to an Indo-European religion, which would make this list impossibly large. Its also deeply anachronistic to refer to people this way. ★Trekker (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, and Religion. ★Trekker (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It don't seem to be that large to me. And if that becomes a problem it can easily be split up in various sub-lists. // Liftarn (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the only or main problem, "pagan" can be anyone that isn't Christian or Jewish, I don't think its something people should be listed as.★Trekker (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This could be a valid list if it were renamed "List of modern pagans" (cf. modern paganism), and only listed people who self-identify as such. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that could work, "Modern Pagan" is far better defined and people actually self-identify as such.★Trekker (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to call it Neo-Pagan then? // 31.211.241.121 (talk) 09:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most modern pagans don't call themselves neo-pagans (see Modern paganism#Reappropriation of "paganism"). Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the term "neopagan" is disputed many (not all of course) people do consider themselves as "pagan" in modern day even if they do also subscribe to a more specific identity of faith.★Trekker (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The list was never specifically about something Indo-European, but it originally only listed modern people. A better solution would be to remove the pre-moderns again and explicitly make it a list of modern pagans, as suggested above. Ffranc (talk) 10:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or split -- I am not sure of the merits of some of the sections, but bringing together the final pre-Christian rulers of European lands may be useful. Modern neo-pagans should certainly be a separate list. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per Peterkingiron. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and turn into set index for articles that can be split/merged. I will take care of List of pagans#Slavic As it stands subject fails LISTN, mixes apples and oranges into a mess of unrelated items.  // Timothy :: talk  08:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Split the Slavic list entries into Outline of Slavic history and culture#Individuals  // Timothy :: talk  08:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like the most intelligent and logical step. I support this.★Trekker (talk) 12:45, 21 March 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 Serbs. There is clear consensus against keeping this. There is some support for merging the bare definitions, undercut by opposition to merging based on sourcing issues. I see no strong opposition to a redirect, and no opposition based in policy to adding a sourced version of the definition to the target. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serbians

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

)

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

This article was created in 2007 and has since then been repeatedly redirected and restored. There doesn’t seem to be any end to this pointless going and froing so I am bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Serbia. Mccapra (talk) 08:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Redirect or disambiguate seems like notdict to me. (t · c) buidhe 08:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment my issues with this article are firstly that its core proposition is unsupported by any evidence, namely that the single word “Serbian” has two distinct morphological forms. It doesn’t, it’s just more ambiguous in its meaning than the equivalent term in Serbian itself is. Secondly most of the rest of the article doesn’t even discuss the purported topic of an English language word, and instead veers off to tell us about words in Serbian and Croatian. So there is a non topic - actually a false assertion about the English language - followed by discussion of different, tangentially related topics. In my view there is no basis for an article here at all, so I think deletion is appropriate, but at the very least I’d like a consensus to redirect so we can stop the pointless bickering over it. Mccapra (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm leaning towards a merge and redirect into article
  Serb) or srpsko ("ethnically Serbian", but has no different literal translation to "of Serbia" srbijansko in English), whereas everything and everyone from Croatia is referred to as hrvatsko (no equivalent "hrvatijansko" exists) regardless of ethnic affiliation. -Vipz (talk) 14:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Which is interesting, yes, but not the topic of this article. There may be value in an article about how various groups in the western balkans refer to themselves and their neighbours, but that has nothing to do with the alleged meanings of an English word. Mccapra (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete DICDEF, although longer, that's essentially what this is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, IMO this is a (badly organised)
  set index article because it links to two possible meanings that are both demographic groups. It should be kept as a list of notable items per the SIA guidelines. small jars tc 16:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: These issues should have been discussed first at the talk page of that article, before initiating the deletion procedure. Sorabino (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Serbs unless someone can explain to me what the difference between the two is. Stifle (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is against keeping so far, though given the apparent history we should try to come to a clearer consensus about what to do with the page instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposed and especially to any proposal of merging with the article Serbs. I'll respond to @Stifle: what the significance of this term is and why in my view keeping the page is useful and needed. English speakers generally fail to see differences between the terms Serb and Serbian, using them interchangeably but native speakers and speakers of related languages use Serb as an ethnonym while Serbian is used as a demonym. In simpler terms, Serbs are an ethnic group while Serbians are people from Serbia, not all of whom are Serbs. Milorad Dodik, Nikola Tesla and Vuk Karadžić are all Serbs but not all of them are Serbians. Meanwhile, Vasko Popa and Bekim Fehmiu are Serbians but they're not Serbs. This distinction has a lot of cultural and political polemics surrounding it and it has been debated, misunderstood and attacked since at least the 19th century. Here's a Serbian news article from 2018 explaining the history of the term, the usage and perception of it. Vuk Karadžić's dictionary has a definition of it, it simply means someone from Serbia much like someone from California would be called a Californian. Serb nationalists don't like this term for example because they believe it creates artificial divisions among Serbs depending on where they live. English speakers are generally unaware of all of this and treat it like a synonym. Deleting the page would do a great disservice to this encyclopedia and I'd urge editors to look more into the term. Your very own perception of the term, even though clearly different from the native views, likewise adds valuable information. Indeed, the page starts with the two different uses of the term but I suppose the wording is not the best. P.S. Here's another article in Croatian from 2011 explaining the difference because it's a thing that pops up from time to time in the cultural sphere. There's even a politically derisive term Drugosrbijanci that's based on this word. This isn't even mentioned in the article, which upon closer examination really needs some cleaning by people who are familiar with the topic. The page needs better wording, more content and sources, not deletion. --Killuminator (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we should not propagate a falsehood because it allegedly helps distinguish between the meaning of two terms. It is absolutely fine for us to say Serb is an ethnonym and Serbian is a demonym, but we don’t need two separate articles to do that, let alone one that makes up a non existent distinction between two alleged derivations of a word in English, and then discusses terms in other languages anyway (off topic). Mccapra (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is a dictionary def, not an encyclopedic topic. There is not enough proper sourcing to merge content (strongly oppose merging poorly sourced content), a redirect to Wiktionary would work if someone wants to do it.  // Timothy :: talk  08:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as it stands now, or redirect to Serbs. Any difference between the two terms can be handled there. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

László Oláh

László Oláh (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 searched Hungarian sources but can't find anything to suggest that Oláh László passes

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless someone can provide sources for him to prove me wrong, I don't see this semi-pro player passing
  WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  significant coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 09:11, 18 March 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.

Sergis Kyratzis

Sergis Kyratzis (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 can't find anything to suggest that he meets

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per changes to notability guideline --Leonstojka (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Atalanta Kercyku

Atalanta Kercyku (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. Simply being a Miss World contestant is insufficient to establish notability. The included sources are mostly interviews or her commenting on something or another and do not pass as

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. AmusingWeasel (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Beauty pageants. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Nocturnal781 (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been reviewed. Mpsaharan8 (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 19:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no coverage other than pageant listings giving her height/weight and similar stats.

Oaktree b (talk) 21:57, 16 March 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.

Komiljon Otaniyozov

Komiljon Otaniyozov (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 doubt the subject meets the inclusion criteria set for singers by WP:NM AmusingWeasel (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Uzbekistan. AmusingWeasel (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Bands and musicians. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:39, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nocturnal781 (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes
  WP:NTEMP. Jfire (talk) 15:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 19:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per the reliable sources identified above such as an entry in the National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan and a national newspaper obituary so that
  WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Passes
  WP:ANYBIO and possibly GNG. Based on what is already in the article, a language sme could probably find additional sources.  // Timothy :: talk  14:47, 21 March 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 Cook County Board of Commissioners#Commissioners. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Josina Morita

Josina Morita (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)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Illinois. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - as a
  Cook County commissioner, she has political power over a large, populated area. Please ping me if you can find more sources. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The size of a local jurisdiction is not a notability freebie under

WP:NPOL #2 on the depth and quality of her sourceability. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 19:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Cook County Board of Commissioners#Commissioners. Article should be deleted before redirect because it is a largely unsourced BLP. BLPs need clearly Ind RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notabilty to avoid abuse.

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.

Anıl Ulaş Övençoğlu

Anıl Ulaş Övençoğlu (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 finding evidence of notability after source search, does not appear to pass

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Turkey. ASUKITE 16:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lack of
  details can't be verified for this BLP. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 19:44, 16 March 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.

Otto Feyder (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 fail

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and United States of America. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Something funny relating to Feyder: he was one of 110 US gymnasts (out of 119 total competitors) at the all-around event in 1904, but the US was not able to get top five! BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 11:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio ^giuliano 19:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to United States at the 1904 Summer Olympics per above.  // Timothy :: talk  16:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. –dlthewave ☎ 01:53, 22 March 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 Automatix (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)

Local Detroit band that recorded a single album. Google search results show lots of entries in databases like AllMusic and Discogs, but little more than mentions-in-passing otherwise. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Michigan. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:42, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bruce Nazarian, as it is his band. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bruce Nazarian where it is already covered, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bruce Nazarian per above.  // Timothy :: talk  18:30, 21 March 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. Bbb23 (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Power-Up version history

Ford Power-Up version history (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)

Ford Power-Up and its version history do not seem to be independently notable. None of the sources I found go

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, Transportation, and United States of America. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I also see this page was previously earmarked for deletion, and it was kept online because "the sources on this page are properly cited to a sufficient degree". I am assuming that perhaps this person clicked on the sources and read through them to see what was in there. If you do that, you will see the people confirming the updates validity are not just keyboard warriors on the forum. They are master technicians, Ford employees and software engineers that happen to be members of the forum and provide insight to members who don't know what is going on.

  The link I wanted to use as a source in the teahouse today:

  https://www.f150gen14.com/forum/threads/power-up-4-2-1-ota-software-update-installed-today.16496/

  The first post is a member reporting the update I was trying to source on the wiki page with a picture from his Fordpass app indicating he got the update with a date stamp and all. The second post is another member confirming he also got that update. The first post in the second page is me referencing a piece of the wiki page in question showing a similar update was previously released for a different Ford vehicle. After a few days of members on this and various forums reporting the update and everything being linear for everyone by verifying the update by inputting the VIN of the vehicle into Ford's proprietary dealer software for confrmation, I felt I had collected enough data from enough vehicles to update wiki page to reflect the update also going out to the F150 line of vehicles. Look at the verbiage on the screenshot from the Fordpass app (primary source) and then compare it to the verbiage I added to the wiki page under 4.2.1 where I added (F150) at the end to indicate that it is particular to the F150 only. It is the same almost verbatim. Rugedraw (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with extreme prejudice. When you remove the endless citations to discussion forums, there's hardly anything left. This never should have been created and is not an encyclopedic topic. This quite literally fails
  WP:NOTCHANGELOG. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete—there are 74 forum posts cited in the reference list out of 98 footnotes. This is clear failure to meet
  WP:GNG. Imzadi 1979 → 21:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

It is obvious to me that the only person defending this wiki page will be me. The reason forums are the majority of the cited references is because Ford has not compiled a list of the updates they have pushed out to owners of 2021 + F150's, F150 Lightnings and Mustang Mach E which are the only vehicles capable of receiving OTA updates (so far). As a matter of fact, their OTA process has been nothing short of disastrous leaving many people in the air as to where their vehicle stands in the update process. Because there is no posted history on Ford's website or otherwise, a wiki was created to serve as a reference point for owners to see where they are in terms of being up to date with software versions. The reason the links to forums are referenced is because you can go in there are see multiple people reporting getting said update and posting screenshots that coincide with the revision numbers and what the update entails. This page has been a great help to many and continues to provide good and accurate info to this very day. This page also doubles as the only documented history of these updates available anywhere.

I went in the tearoom trying to see how I can update this properly, and I know now that what I mentioned above is not how wiki works. I know what the responses are going to be to my post. Like I said in the tearoom, I am very new to this, so pardon my ignorance. I can link a vast majority of the updates mentioned with links to NHTSA filings that Ford filed before they released the update(s). I will be happy to do so, but I will need time as I have a full time job that I cannot put on hold to update a wiki page that I did not create. I don't even know how to add a source to it. I tried and I was not able to get into the editor of that section. A lot of people have put a lot of time and research in compiling that list and ensuring its accuracy. If I am given some time to make it more wiki-able, I will gladly do so. Rugedraw (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit this violates

WP:NOTCHANGELOG, then? You can make an entire Wiki about Ford updates or whatever on Fandom, but Wikipedia is not a place to host such materials. By the way, you're not the only one with a full-time job. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know with any certainty what it violates. I am not well versed in wiki politics. If it is being called out, I am sure it does violate something and maybe more than one thing. I have to digress to the experts on that. What I do know is that myself and others have spent months compiling the data that is on there. Unfortunately, I learned today that the sources listed are not considered credible, and I cannot use Ford itself as a source as it has to be a second party to verify the info and it is difficult to find second party verification to these updates because they cater to a small group of people. Like I said, I can link the NHTSA filings (some of the updates listed there do have the NHTSA filings as a source), but it will take time to do so. I can link some vlogs that posted to its communities of a new software update being released, but if this is going to be deleted either way, I would rather save the time for something productive and not waste it in a moot effort to keep this page online. While I am not the person who created this page, I have referenced it several times and have posted the link referencing other people with questions/concerns about these updates to this page. I cannot speak with intelligence as to what is supposed to be on wiki or not. All I did was ask how to properly document a source so I can add something to the page the right way, and all I ended up doing was drawing negative attention to the page that has been an great asset to hundreds, possibly thousands of people (and counting) that own said vehicles and are trying to keep track of where they stand in the update process.

Look at this page, for example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10_version_history

Microsoft Support is listed as the source for most of the updates. I am not understanding the difference between this and me citing Ford as the source for these updates.

I was warned by the moderator who removed my content today that wiki editing for new people is NOT an easy task. I see now what he meant. I also understand why wiki has things in place to ensure misinformation does not spread via its platform. However, the forums linked as sources all reflect many users reporting getting the update and then someone with inside knowledge from Ford (like myself) chiming in providing details on the update directly from Ford's technician system verifying it's validity and contents. If the point of the sources is verifiability and for someone with no knowledge of the subject in hand to be able to click the source and verify this update exists, then the sources listed meet the criteria, meet the timeline listed, and provide details that match what the wiki says. I don't expect wiki to bend the rules for me or for this page that as I mentioned before, is only relevant to a small populace. If what needs to be done is provide more credible sources, I can do that. I just can't do it overnight. Rugedraw (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10's version history is definitely notable and is well documented as well as Window 10 itself being notable. Ford Power-Up version history is not and neither is Ford Power-Up. See

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sorry, but I see this as selective discrimination. I am at a severe disadvantage here as I keep getting thrown all these wiki stipulations that I am not privy to making it very difficult for me to plead my case. Everything seems to be very black or white, but with Microsoft being the sourse for Microsoft, there is a gray area allowed?

Do whatever you guys feel is right. I made the online community that supports this page aware of this and they have already pulled the data, transferred it to Excel and the forum admins will be sticking the thread with the info in the "unreliable forum" I was trying to cite as a source. If this page stays up, I will gladly start replacing the cited sources with sources that are more acceptable to the wiki community. If it gets taken down, then we will host the info in the forums. Rugedraw (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're

WP:NOTHERE. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 13:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This is how they keep Wikipedia from becoming too useful for specific communities (there are actually good reasons for that). Windows 10 version history is no where near as useful or notable as the controversial mess that is the Ford Powerup version information. For the last few years, Wikipedia has been the only place to find these resources referenced and organized in a useful way (as any Wiki should work) and it has been an indispensable source of information for those trying to understand where they are in the evolution of the Ford software/firmware update stream. We can't have that on Wikipedia. Too useful, unlike old Windows 10 updates that have no relevance to any ongoing technical need or any historic importance let alone their recursive self-references as sources.

That said, Wikipedia itself is probably the wrong place for this sort of information. While Wikipedia's recondite collection of gatekeeper requirements has grown more unwieldy than the CFRs that regulate the government (this is starting to inhibit the collection of useful information that is not related to quantitative sciences or well established histories and has become well known as a source of rumor for current bios, eg, and for enforcing its gatekeepers' biases on current events), the history of Ford Powerup versions should be housed elsewhere, if possible. I respect Rugedraw's efforts and would like to see them housed where the local HOA cannot wipe them out. DiacriticalOne (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be shocked to learn this, but this isn't some magical thing that has recently happened. The redirect

assuming bad faith on the part of other editors, without evidence. Of course, considering your last 50 edits go back to 2007, I suppose you could be forgiven for not knowing policy. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I was not referring to that one policy, of course. And no, I am not a WP wonk (I've never even tried to get someone's contributions excised because they violated a policy). As I said, there are good reasons for keeping this out of data out of Wikipedia, though they are not easily understood when reduced to the word salad that is WP. Not all of the policies are useful and, yes, some of the editors are just kooks, but when it comes to certain topics, Wikipedia is a wonderful resource. The list of changes to Powerup is not appropriate to the site. We do not disagree (perhaps only to the extend that it is more appropriate than the Windows 10 changeling). DiacriticalOne (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Incubate Merge with
  WP:GNG issues, but a few minutes searching and I was able to turn up regulatory filings with NHTSA that would replace the problematic forum sources. I see and hear the wp:notachangelog argument, but I think the argument that Ford Power-Up isn’t notable is problematic, as it is covered in media sources sufficient that I think it by itself would pass the notability test. Perhaps the issue here could be resolved with a middle path, incubating to allow for fixing the sourcing issues or merging the article with a a Ford Power-Up general article and fixing the sourcing? Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Mind providing the sources for Ford Power-Up being notable? I looked and didn't really see much. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not at all. I have a vested interest in making this page right. I am just in waaaay over my head at the moment. Rugedraw (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure.

  I found coverage in several automotive press outlets, including:

  https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a36412171/ford-launches-new-software-updates-called-power-up/

  https://www.motor1.com/news/507133/ford-power-up-software-updates/

  Coverage in several tech press outlets, such as:

  https://techcrunch.com/2021/05/13/ford-is-bringing-significant-wireless-software-updates-to-its-vehicles/

  I also found two specific updates via Power Up, one to the Ford Mach-E and one to the Ford Lightning, that themselves merited independent media articles, aside from the regulatory filings.

  https://www.motortrend.com/news/ford-f-150-lightning-ota-knob-update/

  https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/01/ford-updates-mustang-mach-e-ui-now-you-can-turn-a-knob-to-change-temps/

  Major coverage in tech and automotive press should at least justify the Power Up topic itself as notable.

  Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The second source you provided is hardly

  WP:INDEPTH. I'm looking at the others right now. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  That is the weaker article, yes. I would argue the Autoweek and TechCrunch at least put the update system in sufficient context, if perhaps not the version history, discussing, for example, that updates for vehicles were not yet commonplace at the time of launch, and the articles go into reasonable detail about how the system works and it’s potential uses that it’s not merely routine coverage. I would go on to argue the subsequent coverage of specific updates suggests sufficient duration of coverage to be notable. As a result, I still lean towards preserve and incubate. Jo7hs2 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The Motortrend source makes no mention of Power-Up (in fact they simply describe it as an OTA update) and isn't even close to

  WP:TECHCRUNCH although I"m not entirely sure if it satisifies WP:INDEPTH, so at most you have 2 good sources which is below the 3 typically asked for to demonstrate notability. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  This third source has a similar level of detail.

  https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/ford/2021/05/13/power-up-ford-sees-potential-new-revenue-better-experience/5057572001/

  I also found an article discussing Power Up in a general overview of the tech status of automakers, showing continuing coverage:

  https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/american-carmakers-muscle-up-software-tech-keep-horsepower-wars-going-2023-03-06/

  I also managed to find additional articles on several additional, specific releases or specific planned releases:

  https://www.cars.com/articles/over-the-air-software-update-brings-additional-camera-functionality-to-our-ford-f-150-457554/

  https://www.automotiveworld.com/news-releases/bluecruise-ford-power-up-software-update-transforms-f-150-mustang-mach-e-models-for-hands-free-driving/

  https://fordauthority.com/2022/09/new-ford-evs-will-add-video-streaming-apps-with-future-update/

  https://www.autoevolution.com/news/ford-bronco-and-f-150-to-get-full-screen-apple-carplay-via-power-up-ota-update-200670.html

  https://www.teslarati.com/ford-power-up-3-5-3-software-update-release-notes/

  https://fordauthority.com/2022/05/some-2022-ford-f-150-lighting-trucks-to-get-phone-as-a-key-soon/

  https://www.autoblog.com/2022/11/14/ford-bronco-camera-recall/

  The Power Up program is also mentioned in an article discussing how WV was considering a bill to ban OTA, I would argue as additional support for notability.

  https://fordauthority.com/2022/02/ford-ota-updates-to-owners-could-be-banned-in-west-virginia/ Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And as support for continuing coverage, I’ll also note there’s been podcast interviews about the system, and a number of major media outlets with weaker articles, such as

  https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/13/22432770/ford-ota-software-update-amazon-alexa

  https://www.zdnet.com/article/ford-to-produce-30-million-ota-capable-vehicles-by-2028/

  https://www.motor1.com/features/507419/rambling-about-cars-podcast-19/ Jo7hs2 (talk) 17:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Haven't you ever heard of

  WP:THREE? Nobody's gonna read 13 articles. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I separated them out and clearly marked the one that was for notability. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But for clarity, it’s that first article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The reuters source makes no mention of Power-Up (although they did get a quote from

  WP:INDEPENDENT since it is mostly made up of a quote from Ford and is about 1 specific update. The second Ford authority source isn't even about Ford Power-Up but merely an update for it. Look, I'm not gonna look any further cause it's clear to me that none of these sources prove it's notability. It kinda just feels like you're pulling any source that mentions "Ford Power-Up" anywhere in it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Assume good faith. I was providing information about specific updates to show continuing coverage, not throwing spaghetti at the wall.

  The Reuters article did mention Power-Up, by the way, I’ll quote a reference:

  “Ford, which sells an electric SUV that wears the same badge as the Mustang, said its Ford Power-Up over-the-air software updates create an "upgradable ownership experience" over time.”

  But what I wanted you to see most was that Detroit article at the top. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I know you are meaning to provide useful sources, however it feels like you're throwing spaghetti on the wall. And while the reuters source does mention Power-Up, it's just a passing mention. I read through the detroit article and it does seem pretty good, altho I"m not sure how good it is in this case since Ford is from Michigan (altho that may be me looking too deeply into this) and the author only has ~2 years of experience. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You may indeed be looking too deeply at it at that point.

  Detroit is the center of US auto making, and as a result there’s considerably greater coverage of the automotive industry than is normal in local papers elsewhere. I don’t think that falls into the local news coverage trap in this instance.

  The author, Jordyn Grzelewski (the paper’s Autos & Business Reporter), has been with that paper since 2020, and has been a published journalist at lower level papers since 2014. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah ok. I looked at her bio on the Detroit News website and it didn't say when she had started journalism. As for me saying she's only been with the company for 2 years and not 3... that's just me being bad at math. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So my take is I see three okay-ish sources for notability in terms of in-depth coverage, a whole bunch of lesser sources showing continuing coverage, articles confirming several of the specific updates (and other updates that can be corroborated, albeit by primary sourcing), and at least one article discussing Power-Up implications regarding a potential bill banning OTA updates. There’s decent coverage of what the update system does and how it works (including number of modules it can update, cell connectivity, etc) and relevance to the automotive industry confirming Ford is a relative early adopter with this OTA process, and confirmation of a large user base (since it’s installed in the high-volume F-150 for example). Yeah, there’s an update list issue here, and some of the updates do require primary sourcing for confirmation, but there’s no interpretation of those sources required as its purely factual material of content of the update. So I still lean that it’s notable and should be preserved, albeit with a need for substantial revision. I do acknowledge incubate may be a little late here, it’s not a 90-day article. However, there’s not a specific Ford Power Up article to merge with at the moment, and merging with Ford directly seems inelegant Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "a whole bunch of lesser sources showing continuing coverage, articles confirming several of the specific updates" sources that aren't specifically about Power-Up don't really help show continuing coverage. Excluding the reuters source what is the most recent one in your list above? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  January 2023.

  https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/01/ford-updates-mustang-mach-e-ui-now-you-can-turn-a-knob-to-change-temps/ Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Several other articles also cover that update, such as

  https://electrek.co/2023/01/06/ford-finds-unique-knob-control-solution-in-new-mach-e-ota-update/

  https://www.thedrive.com/news/ford-mustang-mach-es-physical-knob-can-now-control-hvac-thanks-to-ota-update

  With discussion of relevance to the automotive industry, that OTA updates were providing ongoing vehicle improvements.

  Yes, the article is about the update, but it’s coverage of a Power-Up update. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright then. Mind answering the questions at

  WP:NOPAGE here then? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Does other information provide needed context and do related topics provide needed context? Not really, on both. There is currently no article this information would fit better into. It would needlessly complicate the main Ford article. It’s included in multiple models, so inclusion in specific vehicle model articles would pose a scope issue. The article on OTAs as a general topic is primarily mobile phone focused. There is currently no main Ford Power-Up article, only this list.

  What sourcing is available now we’ve already been discussing.

  Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, the more I think about it, this article probably should be merged with Ford Sync since they’re related systems and the topics are inextricably linked. Power Up is used to update Sync, and the user’s primary interface with it is via Sync 4/4a. There is certainly enough notability here to justify a section in Ford Sync. Jo7hs2 (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do agree that would be an appropriate place for info about Ford Power-Up but not this article. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:06, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the first portion of the article providing information about Power Up is probably salvageable. The update history might clutter the Sync page and be confusing since Sync has its own update versions. Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Regulatory filings are not secondary sources. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, they are not, but I am arguing above there is sufficient secondary sourcing for notability, and the primary sources aren’t necessarily for interpretive support, only for factual information about content of an update. Several of the updates are also backed up by secondary source coverage in automotive press. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  100% agreed with merging, if action has to be done. I get the "not a manual" complaints, but it's genuinely useful information, and plenty of other articles have changelogs for major version revisions. Shadic (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Complete junk. scope_creep^Talk 22:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you please elaborate? AfD isn’t a mere voting process. We owe it to the community to elaborate on why an article does or does not meet the criteria for inclusion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it has been copied and pasted out a manual and Wikipedia is not a manual per

  WP:NOT. scope_creep^Talk 16:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete A high level timeline of feature introductions might have a place in the main SYNC article, this is deep into trivial details for service technicians and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. —dgies^t_c 00:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see the value and disagree that this level of detail is focused towards service technicians. Being that this article relates to safety features of the best selling vehicle in the United States, the best selling vehicle produced by Ford, and the best selling pickup truck in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_automobiles), I could envision owners and potential owners being very interested in this information. The value and utility of the information should not be confused with the availability of sound references. 75.10.167.166 (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's basically an argument to keep anything and everything that relates to popular products. How do you square your argument against the policy Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information? —dgies^t_c 01:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can understand the argument that this page goes into too much detail, but I think that to completely delete the page would remove useful, relevant information. Additionally, Apple's iOS pages have a similar level of detail in reference to sub-minor version updates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_9#Version_history). If we remove the popularity of the product from consideration as you suggest then how do you justify the level of detail provided on iOS versus here? 75.10.167.166 (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said before, details on version history belong in the parent topic article, in this case Ford Sync. —dgies^t_c 03:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  While Ford Sync is related, the topic of this article extends beyond the scope of Ford Sync, as described here: https://www.ford.com/support/how-tos/ford-technology/software-updates/what-are-ford-power-up-software-updates/. Perhaps this article would become more relevant if it was updated to better reflect this? For example, in https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2022/07/28/bluecruise-ford-power-up-software-update.html, Ford Power Up software updates have included aspects such as BlueCruise, which are well outside the scope of Ford Sync. 75.10.167.166 (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If Ford Power Up really deserves its own article, it will need to say more than the version history. Is an OTA firmware updater really notable? —dgies^t_c 14:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: for all the reasons above. Completely fails GNG and PRODUCT by failing to have SIGCOV from IS RS addressing the subject directly and indepth. First part of the article is promo, second part, Wikipedia is not a directory of version releases
  WP:NOTCHANGELOG.  // Timothy :: talk  19:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep The Article is a useful Encyclopedic Entry. The list is useful and it is convenient to have the list directly accessible. Some comments refer to 'notability', which seems to be a contentious criteria for subjects such as this. The list is current and useful and as far as I can tell not accessible elsewhere. CanonymousBob (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What Wikipedia is Not. Anyone is free to host this data on their own website. —dgies^t_c 21:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete - Does not meet
  WP:GNG, no matter how useful it is.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:28, 24 March 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 Comoros at the 2016 Summer Olympics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Athoumane Solihi

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

)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Comoros at the 2016 Summer Olympics per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 07:09, 23 March 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.

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

)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Africa. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete No evidence he meets any SNG or
  WP:GNG. He lost his only match at the Olympics in the round of 64, is ranked 337th in the world, and lost his only match at the African championships. The only sources are databases, which fail to provide significant independent coverage. Papaursa (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Redirect to Comoros at the 2020 Summer Olympics. Papaursa (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Comoros at the 2020 Summer Olympics] per WP:ATD. Ingratis (talk) 07:07, 23 March 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.

Dean Walling

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Caribbean. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Some newspapers.com coverage at [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] and [25]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly notable. Over 350 appearances in English professional football, caps for St Kitts at International level, and the coverage to support it, see also this and this and this as well as stuff above. Everything I have found is from a very quick Google search. Nominator has not even tried. GiantSnowman 21:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  How do you know I didn't try, like lol? Can you prove it? This is pretty rich coming from someone who also copies and pastes the same comment on almost every AFD, asking to be pinged if there are sources found. That implies YOU also have no tried. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not a normal response (which would have been 'sorry, I couldn't find the sources in my search, happy to withdraw'); that is the response of somebody who didn't do any search whatsoever. If I see it again I'll seek a topic ban for you from AFDs. GiantSnowman 20:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep This player with this amount of games will clearly be notable.
  WP:BEFORE, article improvement, don't bother nomination articles like this for AfD. You're just wasting everyones time here. Govvy (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  How do you know I didn't do

  WP:BEFORE? Can you prove it? Absolutely not, so please stop wasting people's time with your comments. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep - More sources were provided above and I'm sure more was out there. He played hundreds of games in pro leagues and won Team of the Year honors.KatoKungLee (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I feel that he passes
  WP:GNG with some of the above sources found by BeanieFan11 and GiantSnowman. I've added several of those sources to the article. Alvaldi (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep passes GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the newspapers.com coverage alone is sufficient for GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:51, 19 March 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. Favonian (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled The Lord of the Rings

Untitled The Lord of the Rings (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 reason for this to have an article yet. In addition, the article peddles fake news, such as Peter Jackson returning to write and direct (not confirmed), and Andrew Lesnie being the cinematographer (he has been dead for 8 years). --Quiz shows 18:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Film. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all the coverage is speculative and its not even clear that they're talking about a single movie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article doesn't really say much, and as the nominator states, what it does say isn't verified. It seems like we're a long way from
  WP:NFF's threshold of starting principal photography and there's nothing else notable in the article. --Mgp28 (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy delete – Immediately fails
  WP:NFF. And on top of that, the title is in the wrong format (missing "film"). InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - No evidence that the requirements of
  WP:NFF are met. WJ94 (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Yet another 'maybe/maybe not' thing sourced to an earnings call; let's have the studio actually announce this news before we get an article here, not just shareholder pipe dreams. Nate • (chatter) 00:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above: The film is not filmed yet. 99.209.40.250 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails
  WP:NFF, and there is no need to draftify since we already have "Draft:Untitled The Lord of the Rings film". {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help) -2pou (talk) 20:13, 22 March 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 Saint Patrick's Day. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy not patty

Paddy not patty (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 website, the "movement" does not seem to have gathered much critical attention in media. Plenty of discussion about how to call the holiday, none of it is about this website however. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Just wanted to point out that the article is not specifically about that PaddyNotPatty website. Instead, the article states that this 'movement' originates from that website (which I doubt, but that's a different topic). Not gonna vote on this particular entry since I'm very new to AFD's, but I did find a decent amount of articles related to this subject after a 'Paddy not patty movement' google search. Pizzahut69 (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge: The website is definitely not notable, and while the movement could be notable, the article should definitely not revolve around the website (or even mention it in my opinion). I think it would be better to be merged into Saint Patrick's Day, with references of the website removed. Without this, I don't think there is enough information to warrant its own article. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:50, 17 March 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.

Danny Lauter

Danny Lauter (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)

Per

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C.. Skynxnex (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is some coverage, e.g. this and this, but considering he hasn't even played in college yet, I'd say its likely
  WP:TOOSOON. I'd be alright with draftification, as it seems he has good potential to be notable at some point in the future. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Draftification has already been attempted but the article was moved directly back to mainspace by the author. I do not have confidence that the same would not occur again. Bensci54 (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing interested in this article. I really appreciate your insight. I have conducted months of research on this student athlete and I feel that I have found enough information that demonstrates his credibility. I only have presented a high school photo in the article because I feel that it gets the point across that Danny is a up and coming athlete. Also, with the entire Name, Image, and Likeness culture that athletes are presented with today, I feel that this page creation is important. Throughout his athletic career, Danny has gone viral with millions of views granting him the right to be represented on this platform. Also, he was recruited by a lot of notable schools and I found that some of those schools included Colorado, UCLA, Northwestern, Vanderbilt and the list goes on. He is currently battling for the starting job and has a great change of changing the Hoyas program around. Also, Danny is continuing the tradition of playing Division One Football. Multiple members of his family have played at the highest level. Once again thank you for your help! WalterKlaus3 (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While there is possibility of him becoming notable, it is way
  199811✶ 20:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom and
  WP:YOUNGATH. In order for a player to merit a stand-alone article before he's even played the college game, he needs to be a top-tier recruit. Lauter was a mere three-star recruit (four- and five-stars are the elite recruits) and was not ranked among the top players either at quarterback or from his home state (see here). Cbl62 (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Note: User:WalterKlaus3 moved the article to draftspace following the nomination. Nonetheless, the AfD should proceed, and the result IMO should be to delete. Cbl62 (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What's the proper procedure here? It looks like from

  WP:AfD that moving a page that is being discussed is not forbidden, but Drafts also aren't valid targets for AfDs. Does that mean we need to take this to MfD? I am surprised that we don't have coverage for this sort of activity in our procedures somewhere. Bensci54 (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Common sense dictates that a user cannot avoid the outcome of an AfD (one that is already leaning "delete") by simply unilaterally moving their work to draft space. The AfD should run its course, and if the outcome is "delete", the outcome should apply to the draft. Cbl62 (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Further note. The creator/mover (

  WP:SPA whose only substantive edits are to this article and the article on Lauter's high school. Cbl62 (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  His user page suggests he is editing with a motive to help Lauter to obtain

  name, image and likeness funding: "I also support student athletes with the opportunity for support in the new NIL culture." Sorry, but that's not a valid reason for creating a Wikipedia article on an athlete who hasn't even played college ball. Cbl62 (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Re-draftify and temporarily salt mainspace title until 1 August 2023 (it is highly unlikely the subject would do anything to become notable before training camp at the earliest). Subject does not meet GNG or YOUNGATH as he is yet to play a down of college ball. Though very possible he could become notable down the road.Frank Anchor 15:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have this moved back to main space until this AFD is closed and reposted the AFD tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 23 March 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 CSD G11, unambiguous advertising or promotion. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pasindu Kumara

Pasindu Kumara (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)

PROMO. Gsearch goes straight to social media sites. "Well-known" without any media coverage. Flowery text as well. Oaktree b (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• After some research, i found this person made huge amount of contributions for Sinhala language and helped many Sri Lankan people to read with native language. Wikipedia is nothing without users or articles and i think this article should not be deleted. 112.134.166.186 (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please give sources to prove that. I can't speak the language and can't find any in my native language either. Oaktree b (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Could not find any reliable sources for searches "Pasindu Kavinda" or "Pasindu Kumara." This has been
  WP:Speedyed previously under the name Pasindu Kavinda Kumara. Delete and salt both names, please. Chanaka L (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment In page 17, there is a full page article about him https://web.archive.org/web/20140626154400/http://lakbima.lk/oldpapers/ngenaration/2014.06.09.pdf, If newspapers are not reliable sources, can someone advise me what are the reliable sources wikipedia uses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 07:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails
  WP:SELFPROMOTION. I would also question whether U:112.134.166.186 is in fact a sock puppet of the articles creator, User:පසිඳු කාවින්ද (which literally translated means "Who is Pasindu?"). Dan arndt (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Why this person needs promo here when there is plently of articles in newspapers? In page 17, there is a full page article about him https://web.archive.org/web/20140626154400/http://lakbima.lk/oldpapers/ngenaration/2014.06.09.pdf, If newspapers are not reliable sources, can someone advise me what are the reliable sources wikipedia uses? There is a full page article about him in local newspapper Lakbima > https://web.archive.org/web/20140626154400/http://lakbima.lk/oldpapers/ngenaration/2014.06.09.pdf See page 17. Those who can't speak Sinhala language, please use google translate to convert Sinhala text to English. Back in 2014, there was multiple radio stations referred this person's name. For example Lakhanda radio was one of the radio stations in Sri Lanka mentioned his name for the effort to make Sinhala available to milions of Sri Lankan People. පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 07:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: Media coverage should be google or other search engines only? Local media and newspapers not counted?

Why this person needs promo here when there is plently of articles in newspapers and radios? In page 17, there is a full page article about him https://web.archive.org/web/20140626154400/http://lakbima.lk/oldpapers/ngenaration/2014.06.09.pdf, If newspapers are not reliable sources, can someone advise me what are the reliable sources wikipedia uses?

Question for All English users asking to delete this article: If articles or media coverage not in English, articles should be deleted? If Yes, then how other millions of articles which are not in english not deleted yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 07:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@පසිඳු කාවින්ද: Dude, I speak Sinhala. I could not find any worthwhile sources about you. See for yourself.

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

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

Radio or print interviews do not testify for notability, I am afraid. Chanaka L (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying notability is only exist in search engines and above sources right? If Radio and Newsapappers exluded, please go ahead and delete the article because i think your only goal is to delete the article :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 08:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment @
  WP:ANYBIO. Essentially it needs to demonstrate that there is significant coverage about the individual in multiple independent secondary sources. Radio or print interviews are considered primary sources and are not independent or reliable. A number of editors have conducted searches in both English and Sinhalese and can't find anything to verify your claims. Dan arndt (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete and Salt Pasindu Kumara and Pasindu Kavinda Kumara. Clear failure to satisfy
  WP:RS demonstrating any notability and it is simply a translator doing their job. Previous deletion and recreation by a user whose name suggests an undisclosed COI is reason enough to salt the pages. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Adding to my comment: the page creator's talk page has a comment by himself, referring to himself as Pasindu Kavinda. This definitely looks like an undisclosed COI. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simply a translator doing their job? may be for You. This person have contributed more than 50,000 translations for free to make Sinhala available for Facebook according to meida. Just doing their job right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 09:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, translating is what translators do. Not sure what the issue is, we need reliable, extensive discussions about the subject in non-related media. Oaktree b (talk) 11:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you do me a favour? Just search Pasindu Kavinda in Facebook search and tell me how many results have you found, please. Is it 50 or 100 may be more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Found another newspaper mention: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10204416742441330&set=a.1778605147619 — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 08:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I am wikipedia user since 2007 and i saw there were good admins by that time, let's see how admins react to this discussion not based on their personal feelings like people here desperatly want to delete every article, but like a true wikipedia user :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs)

• Speedy delete and Salt: It seems this qualifies as unambiguous promotion and
  talk) 09:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Even the user from Sri Lanka here User:Chanakal wants to delete the article badly it seems no support for Sri Lankan people here, please go ahead and delete it i have no regread :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by පසිඳු කාවින්ද (talk • contribs) 09:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete promotion and G11 material, No SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from Ind RS. BLPs need clear and reliable sourcing for content and notability.  // Timothy :: talk  10:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Based on the given references, i have found the person named Pasindu was featured in Sri Lankan mutiple news sources for the project Facebook Sinhala. Also there were mutiple radio and television programs back in 2014 refered to his work. It seems https://web.archive.org/web/20140626154400/http://lakbima.lk/oldpapers/ngenaration/2014.06.09.pdf was valid newspaper article and radio conversation also clearly mention his name in Sinhala. Proudsrilankan (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)— Proudsrilankan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manmeet Kaur.

Manmeet Kaur. (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)

Technically no longer eligible for BLP PROD as sources have been added since. I'm not seeing enough notable roles for

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Fashion, Beauty pageants, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:46, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table:
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG ?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/music/hindi/check-out-new-hindi-song-music-video-dil-se-utar-gaye-sung-by-raj-barman-featuring-paras-arora-manmeet-kaur-and-shubham-matta/videoshow/90535337.cms		~ WP:TOI	Just a music video, not WP:SIGCOV	✘ No
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/lifestyle/manmeet-kaur-might-be-an-accidental-actress-but-she-is-enjoying-her-ride-both-in-bollywood-and-pollywood-340813			~ Very little actual independent content in this article. Just a quote from her with little further commentary or analysis.	~ Partial
https://www.pinkvilla.com/entertainment/exclusive-shershaah-actress-manmeet-kaur-begins-prep-her-next-focuses-low-carb-diet-889617?amp	Marked as an advert	Marked as an advert		✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/hindi/watch-shershaah-actress-manmeet-kaur-dances-on-tip-tip-barsa-pani/videoshow/88035901.cms		~ WP:TOI	Apparently a video of her dancing	✘ No
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/entertainment/hindi/shershaah-actress-manmeet-kaur-shares-her-experience-of-meeting-kargil-war-martyr-captain-vikram-batras-family-with-sidharth-malhotra-and-kiara-advani/videoshow/85349279.cms?from=mdr		~ WP:TOI	Apparently a video of her speaking, not usually sufficient for a notability claim (the video doesn't work for me)	✘ No
https://www.hindustantimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/i-kept-it-a-secret-till-i-shot-for-my-part-manmeet-kaur-101630260941660-amp.html?utm_source=whatsapp&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=ht_AMP			~ Almost all of the article is just a long quote from her	~ Partial
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}}.

• Delete I could have sworn we just saw this one. I see they've added a period after the name this time, to try and avoid detection. SALT. I don't find any mentions of her, there is an interview in the Hindu from 2019, but that seems to be the extent of recent coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. Clearly doesn't pass
  WP:BIO.Khorang 05:34, 18 March 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.

TokuMX

TokuMX (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, and no longer exists: Github repo. last updated in 2015; sources are mainly SPS, and the latest is from 2014; domain leads to Percona, who discontinued support for the underlying engine in v8.0.28-19 of their product. François Robere (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not seem independently notable outside of Percona.

—dgies^t_c 00:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hyper p

Hyper p (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)

Unknown blogger. Poorly written. The original contributer has a very similar name to the article. Does not meet any notability requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperialMajority (talk • contribs) 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Comment - Something went wrong with the automated steps in this nomination, as the article has both a PROD and this AfD, and both are attributed to ImperialMajority. The PROD can probably be removed for housekeeping reasons. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's likely that was simple human error, as I can't find an automation tag. I'll remove the PROD. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 02:16, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• delete promotional article. --hroest 14:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Internet, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing found for this person, hits on the word "hyper" are too broad to worry about. Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-promoting article and not-notable. Pizzahut69 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A beginner who is trying to make his blog about his favorite songs look like an influential international music industry platform. Neither his "company" nor any of his own songs have generated any media coverage, and his own
  self-promotion efforts should not include a Wikipedia article that he clearly wrote himself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 18:48, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - just an unsourced non-notable autobio. Cabayi (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Subject is non-notable and fails all of our notability criteria.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iloilo United Royals

Iloilo United Royals (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)

Restored article without

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Philippines. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect and then salt. Fails
  WP:GNG. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Keep, I guess. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 14:14, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the
  Smitty Werben 13:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect - agree with nom and Hueman1. Salt after restoring redirect.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect per nom. I currently oppose salting as there was never formal discussion to redirect this page prior to this current AFD, however would support that if there is continued restoration of poorly-sourced content. Frank Anchor 17:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to keep per modifications made by Alvaldi and Howard the Duck. Now a GNG pass. Frank Anchor 12:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Only one source? I found several, including from the The Philippine Star, Daily Guardian, Fastbreak.com.ph, Tie Breaker Times. Alvaldi (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Close this discussion and keep. Expanded it, and should already be good enough for DYK, I guess. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems to meet
  WP:GNG. I have no idea what kind of searching OP did, but I found a lot more with the same search - https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Iloilo+United+Royals%22&client=firefox-b-1-d&ei=lpcUZJTcMu2pptQPnoCPkA0&ved=0ahUKEwiU_8Sws-P9AhXtlIkEHR7AA9IQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=%22Iloilo+United+Royals%22&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAzIECAAQHjIECAAQHjIFCAAQhgM6CAgAEIAEELADOgcIABAeELADOggIABCGAxCwAzoGCAAQFhAeSgQIQRgBULIHWKMWYKsYaAFwAHgAgAFdiAHjAZIBATOYAQCgAQHIAQPAAQE&sclient=gws-wiz-serp#ip=1. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:37, 17 March 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 Lucasfilm Games. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The LucasArts Archives

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

)

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

While I am not certain where it should go if anywhere, this compilation does not seem independently notable or critically/commercially important. They consist only of previously released games that all have their own articles. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added some sources to the article. Timur9008 (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• While definitely an attempt, it doesn't convince me that there is significant coverage out there, much less anything differentiating the compilation from its games. It seems trivial coverage is trivial coverage regardless of whether it's in print or on the internet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:09, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lucasfilm Games. Based on the meager available secondary sourcing, this content would fit best within context of the parent article about the developer. czar 21:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge to
  WP:NOTCATALOGUE.--LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 09:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Lucasfilm Games. I did a search for additional sources and didn't come up with anything else that notable here. The only piece that seems worth merging is that this release happened and the sales note, otherwise I would have marked this as a redirect. Nomader (talk) 02:45, 20 March 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Bevan

Isla Bevan (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 found coverage ([26][27][28][29][30][31]) about a photo of Bevan holding a goose, perhaps enough to justify an article about the photo, but nothing about her as an actor or a person. The coverage of her films is also slim so I don't know about an

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, and Photography. QuietHere (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep per
  WP:NACTOR#1. She was a leading actor in multiple silent films and stage plays. It's difficult to find significant coverage due to a combination of scant digitization for that period, and many, many hits that are just cast lists. pburka (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Which just goes to the point I made initially where the lack of coverage means we can't really guarantee these meet "significant roles in multiple notable films". I know the standards are awkward around classic films because of the lack of digitized contemporary coverage, but despite that I don't think we can just assume notability must exist because the

  sources that presumably exist just aren't readily available. QuietHere (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The films listed on her page appear to be notable, unless you're challenging their inclusion, too. And she had starring roles in all of them. I do think it's reasonable to assume that sources exist for prolific major studio film stars, even if they're not easily found on-line. pburka (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think she passes WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". The British Film Institute lists six films where she is one of the top three featured artists in five of the six. The national portrait gallery describes her as "the English Constance Bennett", repeated in for example, Australian newspapers and "Her likeness"..."Noel Coward personally selected her to be one of the bridesmaids in the New York production of "Bitter Sweet.". There's more coverage in Subscription archives, for example Kinematograph Weekly - Thursday 27 February 1936..."ISLA BEVAN First Film For Three Years" and Daily Mirror - Saturday 15 August 1936..."Love Changes Star with No Use for Marriage" Piecesofuk (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is surely significant coverage which somebody with access to a library with archived periodicals could find. Ther will be reviews. I do not know if American Equity's rules were as harsh then as they are now,, but if they are the fact that she appeared in Bittersweet's Broadway production is a strong arguement for notability. As id the fact that the National Portrait Gallery have a portrait. Of course if she was a rapper with one record at number ten in the Kazakstan charts there would be loads of guff on the net and would be deemed notable; Wikipedia is frequently absurd.TheLongTone (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above rapper comparison aside, this looks convincing enough to me, and clearly the votes are going that way anyway so I may as well end this now. Consider this withdrawn/kept or whatever you wanna write for it. QuietHere (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]