Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 May 11

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< May 10 May 12 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Birthdays

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

Not enough sources to support notability. Most refs are promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:c600:3379:c46c:cc1f:b9c7:9b5a:8453 (talk) 07:48, May 4, 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:43, 11 May 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. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crossland College

Crossland College (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)

Orgininally PRODed article with the rationale "No

WP:SIGCOV
of this college or any obvious notability established. Only source is to the official college website. Tagged for notability since 2010."

The PROD was later removed by an IP with the rationale "I found https://www.daijiworld.com/news/newsDisplay?newsID=861978 in Google News". The source they referenced is just talking about the school principal being awarded a non-notable "best principal" award (not to mention the website is full of spammy advertisements, so it's likely not a

WP:RS) without discussing anything else about the college nor helps further establish any notability for the college. Streetlampguy301 (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:41, 11 May 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 Ikari Warriors. ✗plicit 23:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ralf Jones

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

He has received no commentary, no

ᴛ) 22:10, 11 May 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 CEDU. ✗plicit 23:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Wasserman

Mel Wasserman (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 reliable sources in references. 1keyhole (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 23:29, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of cargo airlines

List of cargo airlines (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)

List of cargo airlines

This

the guideline on list verification
, which states that stand-alone lists should cite sources.

However, doing looking into this, I see that there probably are sufficient sources to keep this article as a list, though I think it needs a heavy edit. Specifically -
This appears to be one of those classic cases where an article was not ready for mainspace, got moved there anyway, and no-one wants to actually do the work of proving that it should be here. No, we cannot simply take a holiday from
WP:N just because "of course it's notable" - do the work to show that it can pass and ideally add that work to the article. FOARP (talk) 10:53, 16 May 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CD Baby

CD Baby (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 records label. No sources found. Forbes in particular is a contributor piece, the rest are fluff and PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. Consensus is that the subject is likely to be notable, but the content needs considerable reworking to be suitable for mainspace. RL0919 (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Flaminio Paleologo (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 "individual". I can't even tell what they're claimed to have done in life. I find no sources for whomever or whatever this article describes. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now it's an even worse translation, this needs to be sent to draft and TNT for now. Oaktree b (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
still gibberish tho. “ The doctor Francesco Valerio and the pharmacist "messer Pavolo" were the executive arms of Valla”??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Subject is very likely notable, but the article in its current state is illegible. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:51, 19 May 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mahrou Ahmadi

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

This is a borderline

WP:BLP1E violation but at best a non-notable one time pageant winner. As an alternative to deletion, article could be redirected to one of the pageant pages, probably Miss Earth 2022 (note Miss Iran 2022 is [still] a redlink and itself presumed non-notable). ☆ Bri (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

You are implying that winning some pageant makes a person notable. The
Big Four pageants are generally presumed to be notable. The subject of this article has not won such an award. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@CastJared: Are you providing a policy-based reason to keep the article? ☆ Bri (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested to weak keep article as it needs more citations. CastJared (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We both agree it needs more citations. The problem is: do such sources exist? There's no presumption that they do, per the relevant notability guideline. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed template, as it tells that the topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. CastJared (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has won beauty pageant and as per the Wikipedia winning awards or pageant means passing the notability and that too she has won 3 pageants so yes this page should not be deleted. — Shaikha Habiba (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Devoter (talk · contribs).
The article lists the subject as the winner of two pageants, and "Miss Iran Earth 2022 pageant" may not actually exist – can you show that it was not an appointment to appear at Miss Earth 2022? At any rate, again, only the big four pageants are considered to be likely to confirm notability, not these national ones (if they exist). ☆ Bri (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying! ☆ Bri (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete BLP, Fails BIO, GNG. Source eval:
Comments Source
One paragraph promo bio, "Who is Mahrou Ahmadi? The information about Mahrou Ahmadi, who gained the appreciation of the masses with his shares on social media, is frequently asked by users on social media and on the internet. So who is Mahrou Ahmadi? Where is he from? How old is he? The answers are here.." 1. "Mahrou Ahmadi Kimdir? Nerelidir? Kaç Yaşındadır? Miss Iran 2022 Güzeli Seçildi!". fenoreporter. Archived from the original on 2023-03-19. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Promo photo spread 2. ^ "صفر تا صد زیباترین دختر ایرانی در ملکه دختر زمین ! + عکس مهرو احمدی کبیر با حجاب و بی حجاب !". رکنا (in Persian). Archived from the original on 2023-03-19. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Promo photo spread 3. ^ Times, I. D. N.; Andini, Dewi. "9 Potret Mahrou Ahmadi, Miss Earth Iran 2022 yang Bikin Terpukau". IDN Times (in Indonesian). Archived from the original on 2022-11-01. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
List with stats, not SIGCOV 4. ^ "Miss Earth 2022 contestants to watch, from first Miss Palestine to Miss Iran". 4 October 2022. Archived from the original on 19 March 2023. Retrieved 19 March 2023.
5. ^ "Queen of Persia 2022 - QUEENS OF PERSIA". 2022-09-15. Archived from the original on 2023-03-21. Retrieved 2023-03-21.
Duplicate of above 6. ^ "Queen of Persia 2022 - QUEENS OF PERSIA". 2022-09-15. Archived from the original on 2023-03-21. Retrieved 2023-03-21.
One of serveral promo contest bios in a list 7. ^ "غوغای دختر ایرانی در مسابقه زیباترین ملکه روی زمین ! + عکس و بیوگرافی مهرو احمدی کبیر !". Vista News. Archived from the original on 2023-03-19. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
Primary, promo 8. ^ "Miss Earth Iran Biography". Missearth.tv. Archived from the original on 2022-12-04. Retrieved 2023-03-19.
None of the keep votes mention sources, and BEFORE showed nothing from IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  04:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: I put the duplicated Queen of Persia link and combined it. CastJared (talk) 17:57, 19 May 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! 23:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Smile Kids Jr. with TeenNick

Smile Kids Jr. with TeenNick (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)

Unreferenced, with no evidence of notability, and BEFORE search finds nothing of substance. Previously draftified and PRODded, but creating editor didn't like any of it, so here we are. Fails

WP:GNG. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khanyisa

Khanyisa (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)

Can’t seem to find how the subject meets

WP:TOOSOON for this page. Xclusivzik (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Having millions of followers or a verified account doesn't establish notability. Furthermore this is supposed to be a biography article, where did you get her birth date because the source you cited doesn't mention it? -Xclusivzik (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, that was my mistake but I'm a good mathematician and it didn't take me long figure 1+1=2.
Okay it states here that "the 26 years old..." and the article was published in 2021, and here she was celebrating her birthday, check the dates and do the math genius. Why are we discussing birthdays and missing the point that the subject won an award and is now a nominee? Doesn't that say something about "notibility"?
talk) 23:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Nomination is fine, but she hasn't had coverage in media we can use for sourcing. She could be the next superstar, but without sourcing, we can't have an article. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:08, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The South African is a solid source, we'd need a few more like it though, the rest in the article aren't. Oaktree b (talk) 15:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That's about all the sourcing there is. I did a .za newspaper search, not much comes up. There's a 6 piece band from the late 90s with the same name, plenty of hits for them, nothing for this individual. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just did a quick .za search. She has been covered at some length at
    WP:SIGCOV as reasonably applied to a South African subject. (See here for one list of sources that SA editors generally consider usable – it's biased towards political coverage but many of these publications are on there.) :::Jlalbion (talk) 17:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting one more time in hopes that Jlalbion's comment will be discussed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete‎. There is a clear consensus, with some dissension, among participating editors that the article as it exists today lacks sourcing to establish notability. There was extensive disagreement about what our notability guidelines say should be done in a situation, like this, about what our requirement about
WP:SIGCOV means and what to do where there is reasonable belief that sources exists but which are not yet present in the article.
As written, the guidelines say that if there is not at least 1 SIGCOV source present, the article should be deleted but if 1 such source exists that may or may not be sufficient to establish notability. While some participating editors believe there was not any source that provides SIGCOV, this did not ultimately have consensus.
Instead the focus ultimately hinges on that second question of how much time is appropriate to wait if there is a reasonable belief that other sources exist. As this discussion has existed for more than a month (having been closed and then reopened during that time) it feels like a reasonable amount of time has been offered during this discussion to find a source and this hasn't yet happened so delete currently has consensus.
But it also feels like more time may result in additional found coverage that establishes notability. As such if any editor wishes to have this restored in their userspace, this request should be granted (if asked I will do it myself). And if an editor finds an additional source that meets SIGCOV, the article can be restored to mainspace (no DRV or other approval necessary). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Gary Perchet

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

Article about former footballer who briefly played professionally in

WP:SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • That first article includes one sentence (about retirement) that isn't a quote from the subject; so it's not secondary coverage. The second article has a mix of quotes and secondary coverage, but it's essentially a match report on how well he performed in a single cup match and the potential that he could move to another club. I can't see how that is SIGCOV. Jogurney (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The first article is secondary coverage, it's not from the subject himself and is not framed as an interview. The second article is also secondary and is significant. You're being pedantic to push your agenda. Ortizesp (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYNEWS says that interviews and reports of interviews with the subject of an article are primary sources. These interviews can be used in the article, but don't count towards notability. The article contains the following text that is not a direct quote from the subject: À même pas 31 ans (il les aura en novembre), Gary Perchet a décidé de tirer sa révérence. «...» Au moment de conclure ces cinq années au FCMB, à qui il «...», le feu follet du flanc gauche tire un bilan contrasté : «...» Des supporters qu’il cite encore pour le match qui l’a le plus marqué : «...» Do you really think what's left counts toward notability? Jogurney (talk) 15:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not opining - I'm simply noting that there are cased, based on context, where interviews are not considered primary. Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That "context" is when an interview is accompanied by significant secondary independent discussion of the interviewee by the author. That is not the case here. JoelleJay (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ortizesp I agree with Jogurney that he first source doesn't contain any significant secondary coverage but the second source is half-decent and has some indepth discussion about him in my opinion. However, GNG requires multiple sources of SIGCOV from multiple publications (both cited sources kom from Le Journal). If you can find 1-2 SIGCOV I'm happy to reconsider but as of now I'm inclined to !vote Delete. Alvaldi (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the first source is not good enough, the second one is OK but not enough on its own. GiantSnowman 18:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What the subject says is never, ever independent or secondary coverage of themselves, and what little commentary is from the author is far too insignificant for GNG. The second source is from the same outlet as the first, so even if both were SIGCOV the subject would still not meet GNG. As it happens, the second source, while better, is also lacking in secondary SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 01:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Ortizesp. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been trying to do a decent BEFORE before opining, but I've been stymied for days because my Archive.org search keeps failing ... and the sight is deadly slow right now. Please don't close as delete for the moment - I'll try again tomorrow. Nfitz (talk) 03:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
archive.org is still being flakey - so I'll move on. Nfitz (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We seem to have consensus that there's one GNG source. This means the
    WP:SPORTBASIC of W:N is met, as it notes that this does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. I am concerned that it's hard to search French media from the decade before last - and we should be looking at a (presumably paywalled) archive. But I'm not aware of one. Any suggestions? Nfitz (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Oh, I forgot to mention - here's a very brief piece here. Too short, but at least it's not from the same publication. Nfitz (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is consensus that there's one piece of SIGCOV. There is consensus that one of the 2 lejsl.com articles is better than the other (which makes sense because 1 of them contains only a few words that are not from the subject). There is only one editor that argued there is SIGCOV, and that person has no response to the question I posed about the usefulness of quotes from the subject in findging SIGCOV. You appear to have agreed that GNG isn't met, but that we ought to presume paywalled and offline sources exist that represent SIGCOV. I think that's an assumption best left to highly unusual situations (not for someone who was a squad member/substitute for two Ligue 2 seasons). Jogurney (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the one is GNG; and thus deletion isn't necessary at this time. I'm not saying we should presume that there is paywalled and offline sources. But that we do meet
WP:NORUSH and review this without prejudice when such archives become readily available. Nfitz (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
NSPORTS says: A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. One source can't meet that. SPORTBASIC says editors shouldn't create articles without at least one source that is plausible SIGCOV; it doesn't say we keep old articles based on a single source that is plausible SIGCOV (and I don't concede that the lejsl.com source is plausible SIGCOV). Jogurney (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple published non-trivial secondary sources is the goal we should strive to achieve. However the relevant part of NSPORT is
WP:NORUSH and as NSPORT notes that in this scenario that it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. Nfitz (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those claiming that they need more time to find sources aren't giving any information on how long they need, and there is no reason the article needs to exist in article space while they are searching; if they find sources, it is easy to recover the article, and if they don't it is a waste of time to keep it in article space where it will require us to hold another AfD to delete - see the example of WP:Articles for deletion/John Charlton (footballer) (3rd nomination), where it took three AfD's to delete the article, with it initially being kept because editors claimed that there must be sources.
Finally, I am not convinced that the one source editors are arguing is SIGCOV is SIGCOV. BilledMammal (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly discussion of whether the one reference in question is GNG or not. But in terms of SPORTCRIT 5, can you give an example, User:BilledMammal of when that section might apply; as that might enlighten us on when not to apply it. Nfitz (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no circumstances where it should be applied to keep an article that fails GNG. I was the editor who added that line, and I can definitively tell you that the intent was only to provide general guidance, to encourage editors seeking to keep or create an article on a sportsperson to keep looking if they found one source containing SIGCOV - while also being clear that the article should not be kept or created on the basis of that aspect of SPORTSCRIT unless additional sources containing SIGCOV could be found.
Could you enlighten us as to how long you want to keep this article before you would concede that such sources can't be found and the article should be deleted? BilledMammal (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An
WP:OWN! I was part of that discussion, and that's certainly not what I thought it meant. How long? I've said this - when French archives of material from that time period become accessible. What's the rush? What's the damage? It's not like there's actual questions of their existence, or mistaken identity that we sometimes see with century-old players. Nfitz (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not
WP:OWN for an editor to describe their intent when adding content. And you weren't part of that discussion; the discussion about adding that wording was minimal, and was focused on objecting to the close of NSPORTS2022 itself, rather than on the wording I was adding. it can be seen here
.
when French archives of material from that time period become accessible When will that be, or are you proposing keeping this article indefinitely despite failing GNG? BilledMammal (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the discussion - that was just the implementation. The discussion is at WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Sports_notability#Subproposal_5, where there was a 16,000 word discussion, where I contributed 10 times. As you notice from the close, it was clear that the one source doesn't have to be their from inception. But you maintain that both sources do? I think you, User:BilledMammal, need to read those 16,000 words and the close statement again.
Huge amounts of material have become available in the last two decades during the period this article has already been around. I doubt we'd have to wait any longer than that period to have enough material available to be definitively sure, one way or another - so relatively quickly. I see no harm; there's no questions about accuracy or verifiability. And as you are aware, we already have evidence that they are likely notable. Nfitz (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is based on the specific wording. That wasn’t discussed in the NSPORTS2022 RFC.
I doubt we'd have to wait any longer than that period So another two decades? You think it is reasonable to keep this article for another 20 years without any evidence that it meets GNG? That’s ridiculous. BilledMammal (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else is wouldn't make sense given the closing statement. But hang on - you say my argument is based on the wording of the policy that was solely an implementation of the discussion? Yes. That's the point. The article is already in it's second decade, without anyone having concerns about there being zero GNG sources. What's the rush? Where's the harm? Nfitz (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree; neither the discussion nor the close supported keeping articles on the basis of having a single SIGCOV source.
And having articles on non-notable topics causes harm, for many reasons that I have gone into elsewhere, including in discussions with you, but aren’t relevant here; the existence of
WP:N presupposes harm. If you believe there is no harm, I suggest you go to that page and suggest that our requirements are weakened or removed. BilledMammal (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Technically, BM, you are correct - the close didn't support keeping articles on the basis of a single SIGCOV - it actually suggested the possibility of doing that with ZERO SIGCOV - but you do know that. I've no idea what has been discussed previously - can you explain here, or at least link to this discussion of how harm is caused when we know that "there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article"? Also, can you tell us how much harm this article existing for about the last 15 years has caused? Nfitz (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are very mistaken about the close; it doesn't support keeping any articles, what it does do is forbid keeping articles where no sigcov can be identified.
If I have time I'll look for our past discussions, but for now I'll just say that it is no longer true that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article; even assuming that you have managed to find one example of SIGCOV, and I dispute that, the fact that you have been unable to find a second despite an extensive search now makes it likely that such sources do not exist. BilledMammal (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SPORTCRIT 5 (and the pre-RfC second sentence of NSPORT) is for article creation and persistence in mainspace when not challenged. It allows someone to create an article with one SIGCOV SIRS without having to worry about it being speedied, and patrolling editors will presume it doesn't need to be investigated for notability further and so generally will just pass over it instead of taking it to AfD/draftifying. It is also my interpretation that the presumptions afforded by the rest of NSPORT can only be applied after #5 is met, although those presumptions are still rebuttable. JoelleJay (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the closure statement suggests that even with ZERO SIGCOVs it can avoid immediate deletion. So what's the one really all about? At the same time, we keep seeing brand new articles at AFD - sometimes with the claim that there's only one GNG! I feel your interpretations are wrong; though at least you are not attempting to mislead us. Nfitz (talk) 05:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as N/C, which I still don't see but following User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gary_Perchet I am reopening to allow for further discussion. Additional days here would be far more productive than DRV and a potential return here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the original "no consensus" close seems fair for now given the current disagreements over how to interpret policy. Garuda3 (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The only editors alleging a "disagreement" in interpretation are those who opposed the NSPORTS2022 proposals in general. That there are a handful of editors who outright reject the consensus and continually seek ways to undermine it does not mean there isn't a strong consensus that a) GNG must be met by all subjects, b) all subjects must have a citation to SIGCOV in their articles to be compliant with NSPORT, and c) presumption of further coverage must enjoy a clear consensus for an article to be retained with only one piece of SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would a disagreement over policy be a reason to keep? Either the article meets our notability guidelines, or it doesn't. The previous !keep voters have suggested there is a single piece of SIGCOV (others don't think there is). Regardless, policy is clear that multiple sources of SIGCOV are needed to satisfy NSPORTS/GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There should be no confusion about how to interpret NSPORTS/SPORTCRIT/NSPORTS2022. NSPORTS requires multiple sources to establish notability: The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Consistent with NSPORTS2022, SPORTCRIT requires at least one source in the article, but a single source doesn't establish notability: Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to merit a stand-alone article. In short, every sports biography must include at least one source of SIGCOV (or face immediate draftification/deletion/redirection), but multiple sources of SIGCOV are required to establish notability (which don't need to be in the article, but do need to be accessible). Jogurney (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The close at WP:Village_pump_(policy)/Sports_notability#Subproposal_5 where the quoted text of SPORTCRIT was approved, clearly says that even the one source isn't immediately necessary. Therefore the claim that there must immediately be two sources is false. Perhaps it would be better to spend our time, identifying and discussing how we can access French archives (perhaps through Wikipedia Library) rather than trying to delete articles for people whore are likely notable! Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're misreading the close. It says the one source of SIGCOV in the article requirement doesn't apply from inception. Articles like this one that have been around for 13 years can't possibly be protected by that language since we are 13 years after inception! Jogurney (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify further, that language was removed because editors were concerned it would result in the deletion of articles even if sources were found later, as they wouldn't have been "present from inception". It wasn't removed to permit articles to be created without such sources, nor was it removed to permit articles to be kept without such sources. BilledMammal (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the current text. I'm not aware that the text had been changed in abeyance of the close. That in itself concerns me. I don't see that I am misreading the close - there's no discussion of timeframe there. Even in the discussion itself, there's talk about how this is to protect against RECENTISM.
Once again - what French archives exist, and how can we go about accessing them? Nfitz (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Oppose I'm sure this isn't what the OP intended, but as written this would allow the deletion of articles on subjects which clearly pass the GNG, just because the article didn't include evidence of that when it was created and Oppose As this would allow the deletion of articles even if they pass GNG just because they were created in a specific way, among others. These are the problems that Wugapodes was referring to, and the reason the proposal was adjusted - not to permit us to keep or create articles without any SIGCOV, which would make the requirement meaningless.
Once again - what French archives exist, and how can we go about accessing them? Shouldn't you at least know where the coverage might exist before insisting that it must exist? BilledMammal (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even from what's available, we know they are likely notable. I'm not sure why the question is being dodged - I'd assume that checking such archives is part of BEFORE for anyone editing in the topic area of French people. Nfitz (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BEFORE does not say anything about attempting to access offline or unavailable sources, that would be ridiculous. JoelleJay (talk) 15:50, 13 May 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! 23:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Gruhn

AfDs for this article:
Ryan Gruhn (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)

Same reasons as first deletion. Doesn't meet GNG. Refbombed with sports statistics and primary refs to the subject's school. Only decent looking ref is a DL to a NatGeo piece I can't find. Nswix (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable as a coach or competitor, the jiujitsutimes references used in the article describe him as academy owner and instructor. Lewolka (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notable. He has competed nationally and internationally. Has instructional videos on BJJ Fanatics. Is coach to multiple notable fighters. Mmareg (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is
IBJJF. Nswix (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎.

(non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Diana Perkins

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

Does not appear the meet any of the criteria at

WP:NSCHOLAR. JMWt (talk) 16:36, 11 May 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. Closing this early as there has been substantial community input and there's not a

WP:CHILDPROTECT
issues: as the outcome of the AfD is inevitable there's no benefit in retaining this material on Wikipedia longer solely for the sake of bureaucracy.

Page title will also be salted. If there's ever a legitimate reason to recreate, this should be via discussion on an established article talkpage, at which time if consensus is established the salting can be removed. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC) Euryalus (talk) 08:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add: An AfD participant has correctly asked for further clarification of this close. There was community consensus that this is a relatively fringe term which might justify a mention in related articles but does not justify a separate article separate from other terms and encyclopedic content related to the same concept. The AfD and related discussions (including the recent ANI thread) indicate some relevance to this sentence from
WP:FRINGE were also relevant to this AfD. Hope that's helpful, and thanks to all those who contributed to this discussion. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Minor-attracted person

AfDs for this article:
Minor-attracted person (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, specifically, was created as a result of

WP:FT/N#Minor-attracted person, and the last AfD. I bring it here for another consensus, as the topic is controversial. Xdtp (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Keep or merge to Chronophilia. Source eval:
Academic sources
source title description journal peer-reviewed
Pedophile, Child Lover, or Minor-Attracted Person? Attitudes Toward Labels Among People Who are Sexually Attracted to Children States that MAP was used in 21 academic papers from 2017 to 2021 (year the paper was issued to the journal). WP:SIGCOV on etymology. Archives of Sexual Behavior yes
“We Do Exist”: The Experiences of Women Living with a Sexual Interest in Minors Uses the term to refer to female pedohebephiles, justifies the use of the term. WP:SIGCOV on etymology and meaning. Archives of Sexual Behavior yes
“I Would Report It Even If They Have Not Committed Anything”: Social Service Students’ Attitudes Toward Minor-Attracted People Predominantly uses the term MAP over 'pedohebephile' and others. WP:SIGCOV on etymology. Sexual Abuse (journal) yes
Changing public attitudes toward minor attracted persons: an evaluation of an anti-stigma intervention Ibid. Journal of Sexual Aggression yes
Non-Offending Minor-Attracted Persons: Professional Practitioners’ Views on the Barriers to Seeking and Receiving Their Help Predominantly used the term. Says it can be used as a replacement for (pedo)hebephile Journal of Child Sexual Abuse yes
“I Despise Myself for Thinking about Them.” A Thematic Analysis of the Mental Health Implications and Employed Coping Mechanisms of Self-Reported Non-Offending Minor Attracted Persons Besides map, also uses the term nomap. WP:SIGCOV on etymology. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse yes
Primary Health Professionals' Beliefs, Experiences, and Willingness to Treat Minor-Attracted Persons Uses the term about 100 times. Also covers its meaning and the "ephebophile" controversy. Archives of Sexual Behavior yes
A Long Dark Shadow WP:SIGCOV on etymology. University of California Press yes
Non-academic sources
Title description
WP:GREL
A flag for pedophiles? It exists, but it is not a push for inclusion in the LGBT community says word has been used by academic, child protective organizations and psychiatrists. WP:SIGCOV on etymology. yes (Agence France-Presse)
FactCheck: The European Commission doesn't use the term ‘minor-attracted person’ instead of 'paedophile' ibid. WP:SIGCOV on etymology. not discussed (The Journal)
Non-academic sources covering non-etymological info about this term (controversies, etc.)
Title description
WP:GREL
Who is Allyn Walker? ODU Professor Quits After Pedophilia Remarks Spark Backlash / mrel (Newsweek)
Police Scotland denies officially labelling paedophiles ‘minor-attracted people’ / yes (The Independent)
Police Scotland release statement amid row over use of 'minor-attracted people' term yes (Yahoo News)
Twitter accused of aiding child abuse by allowing 'explosion' of online paedophile communities / yes (The Telegraph)
Preply Survey: Americans Mixed on term "Minor-Attracted Persons" - B4U-ACT Blog post. not discussed
Don't fall for the 'groomer' slur - it's an old trick used to stir hatred of LGBTQ+ people Says that the supposed inclusion of "MAPs" into LGBT pride is a hoax, as well as that the the term is used among psychologists. not discussed (TheJournal.ie)
Though the topic of this page is controversial, it meets
WP:GREL
sources).
As a regular editor who read the sources of that article, the only thing that I could find that is fringe or controversial about this matter is the inclusion of ephebophilia under the umbrella (apparently because of a
WP:GREL
sources say that this term is fringe, but instead they do report that it has been commonly used among academics and mental health professionals (e.g. psychiatrists, social workers, anti-child sexual abuse organizations).
As for the idea that this term was being used to legalize child rape or anything like that, I could find no reliable sources making this claim. All websites saying this are TERF blogs (W4, Reduxx), alternative media (
WP:Fringe
to describe this paper would be an euphemism.
For the purpose of comparing this article to how it looked like during its 2021 AfD discussion, this is how the previous version of this page looked like then. It was a little dab, the content was significantly different compared to the current page. 🔥 22spears 🔥 16:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC) — 22spears (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note This Editor, who created the article in question, has been indefinitely blocked for pro-pedophilia POV pushing. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything relevant can be covered by a Wiktionary entry. The topic is known all over social media to be an attempted “rebranding” of pedophilia, but any mention of this gets ripped from the article consistently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SurferSquall (talk • contribs) 16:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The topic is known all over social media to be an attempted “rebranding” of pedophilia..."
"Social media" is not a reliable source. The article clearly shows academic articles that use the term, and justifies why it is used by some mental health professionals. The fact that some people on social media say the term is an attempt to rebrand the rebrand pedophilia or legalize child rape is irrelevant. In some spaces, promotion of LGBTQ+ is "known all over social media" as an attempt to legalize pedophilia. This line of thinking does not justify deletion. R alvarez02 (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's just homophobia, when has that ever been true? SurferSquall (talk) 01:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that this term is associated with a some form of "rebranding" of pedophilia has been debunked by this (
WP:MREL) sources. As I had told you weeks ago, I have no problem covering fringe POVs on articles, but this theory is not just "fringe", it has been described by RS as a complete hoax. Besides, "social media" is not a reliable source; I ripped your edits from the article because they had no appropriate sourcing and were blatantly false. 🔥 22spears 🔥 16:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
None of those sources debunk this. They merely debunk any link between the LGBT community and pedophilia, and that link is indeed a hoax.
But the source we cite the most, Jahnke, says the intent behind the term is to remove the stigma associated with pedophilia, i.e. to "rebrand" it, or normalize it (though Jahnke also says that the new term is also stigmatized). DFlhb (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This. The source supports almost the opposite of what this article claims. SurferSquall (talk) 08:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The terms "normalizing" and "destigmatizing" are not synonymous, even though they may appear similar. Everyone in the addiction recovery field wants to destigmatize alcoholism so as to encourage more alcoholics to seek treatment, but no academic in that field will ever claim that being an alcoholic is normal or non-problematic. Although destigmatizing pedohebephilia is more controversial, it is motivated by the exact same logic, and numerous academics in the field of CSA prevention support it. If more pedohebephiles seek mental help, that is not just useful for them personally, but also for society, as mandatory reporting laws are already in place to make sure that the ones that are dangerous get dealt with.Observer42436 (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly inappropriate for you to attempt to delete before the Afd is closed SurferSquall. --Pokelova (talk) 17:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
see
Wikipedia:BLUE. Many pedophiles have attempted to use this term to distance themselves from being called a pedophile. SurferSquall (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That is a circular argument. Surely you can see that? 86Sedan 13:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC) — 86sedan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@SurferSquall, please don't blank the article in the middle of the AfD dicusssion. You already have a history of unconstructive editings on that page. If you continue to disrupt the ways of things around here, you might get blocked. 🔥 22spears 🔥 01:18, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic simply isn't notable enough for its own article. As much as you'd like it to be (which is weird) it does not warrant a whole article. SurferSquall (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One look at your user page tells me everything I need to know about you SurferSquall (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SurferSquall, you have acted highly inappropriately through this entire process. Deleting the article mid-AfD and veiled attacks on @22spears character do not help your case. R alvarez02 (talk) 06:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As stated by another editor, several of this article’s sources do not support the article’s claim. I suggest you read carefully what the sources are actually stating. SurferSquall (talk) 08:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article shows extensive adherence to
WP:Reliable, far more than some other existing articles that have remain untouched on Wikipedia. For instance, Aromanticism
cites a Tumblr archive for the origin of the flag, but the same thing was scrutinized on this page. Additionally, it has been used in many academic articles, and significantly referenced in media. It is obvious that this article is being subjected to more scrutiny because of the bias of some editors.
The
WP:BLAR stated: "If anywhere on the encyclopedia, there, but I don't think this has improved since the last time this went to AfD". This does not contain any supporting evidence for delation. the last AfD stated "Academic sources using this term suggest a high specialized, nuanced meaning and intention behind this term. This nuance and intention is not reflected by its use as a disambiguation page, which seems an inappropriate place for it. Rather, it may be more suitable being incorporated into the body text of larger articles in this topic area, where the deeper intended meaning can be explored." as one of the primary reasons for deletion. This article is not a disambiguation page anymore, if it once was. Additionally, the academic sources and controversy section shows that this term is not used by one author. R alvarez02 (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC) — R alvarez02 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
]
So of note might be absent previous users who took part in the discussion when this article was a disambiguation page, prior to the overhaul. These, [regardless of the opinions they gave] are:
--86Sedan 08:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ignoring likely socks and canvassed accounts there was consensus to delete before you made this, there is consensus now even including them. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar mentions of terms in the name of Wikipedia articles since 2019:

As a guide: Total Google results were approaching 1/10th of "transgender youth", and more than some other topics we cover. It seems to be notable, if controversial. It is not out of the ordinary for Wikipedia to have a moderately sized, well-sourced article on such a topic. --86Sedan 10:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC) — 86sedan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete: Many have already mentioned policy and reasoning I was going to say. I will add, I'm not seeing much in the way of instructive value to this being an article. Deep down, it's just a term, not a concept. It's inclusive of several concepts in its meaning, but is not itself a unique concept. I feel that the use of keyword searches to find occurrences of a term "in the wild" does not change this. Nor do I find keyword hits to be a compelling argument given the nature of the internet to copy strings of text over and over, sometimes millions of times, given the sociological pattern of viral phenomenon, which can give great coverage to trivial or fringe matters, to detriment of truth or reason. Even google scholar is not immune, as what passes for scholarly can sometimes be quite loose, as well as areas of academia that study internet phenomena themselves, instead of the topics found in those phenomena. The suspicious new-yet-experienced-editor SPAs acting on this article also cannot be ignored, given the troubled history of pedophilia-related articles on wikipedia.Legitimus (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The redirect if any should be
    WP:FRINGELEVEL
    can be clarified.
Instead the reader is led to a "culture war" article, lacking proper context and where editors can import
WP:NOTNEWS sources. The "reception" voices are now such as Tucker Carlson. Lauren Boebert, and Libs of TikTok, and some nice "controversy" sections to edit war over. fiveby(zero) 18:24, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
hypernym), it includes NOMAPs (now labeled as anti-contact), not just sex offenders. Xdtp (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Child_sexual_abuse#Pedophilia discusses use of pedophile, Child_sexual_abuse#Prevention, Child_sexual_abuse#Treatment. This is exactly the context in which the academic sources discuss the term. Add the educational content there. Wikipedia should be for readers, not some playground for SPAs. fiveby(zero) 19:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per the previous AfD. 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:E9F1:6989:B39E:7AA4 (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC) — 2603:7080:8F00:49F1:E9F1:6989:B39E:7AA4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete It seems pretty clear that the usage in academia is meant to just be an alternative term for things such as pedophilia and chronophilia. A euphemism, if you will, to avoid the connotations of the original terms and to allow for proper academic rigor to be used. That doesn't make it its own independent concept, however, and the content herein really is just duplicating content found elsewhere, such as in those articles. The article also seems to be being used as a
    coatrack for other topics, which also appears to be the reason for the many SPAs voting keep above. SilverserenC 16:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete or redirect to pedophilia, which this is not meaningfully distinct from. casualdejekyll 18:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Clerk note: The nominator of this AfD has been blocked as a sockpuppet. However, this shouldn't have any bearing on the validity of the AfD, as at this point numerous users in good standing have voted to delete. Thanks, Spicy (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The term does seem to be used in academia. See: Levenson & Grady, "Preventing Sexual Abuse: Perspectives of Minor-Attracted Persons About Seeking Help," in Sex Abuse (Dec. 2019). No opinion about whether this constitutes a POV fork. Carrite (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems rather telling that the abstract doesn't itself use pedophilia, But pedophilia is still one of the five keywords used for the paper, pretty clearly showing that MAP is being used as a euphemistic alternative term for the same thing. SilverserenC 21:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly another term for paedophilia. We don't have two articles on the same subject just because two different words are used for it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I agree the subject is not a separate concept from the chronophilias it refers to and would support merging it with Chronophilia were it a term with not such a history, I concur with Qwaiiplayer that merging it would cause undue emphasis on the term in an article it was merged with as mentioning the term warrants combating misinformation about it, which can't be easily condensed. With all the attention this term is getting, it's beneficial to have quickly accessible information about it available, as opposed to burying it in another article. Queer Linguist (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC) — Queer Linguist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep for reasons explained by User:22Spears and User:86Sedan.-Strippy6 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Strippy6 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
    Look, whoever is behind these socks and old accounts, please don't mingle my name with your operations. You are not salvaging the article, you're just muddying the waters and making the people who voted for "keep" look bad. This is not a poll, it's a discussion. Stop creating new accounts just to say nothing of substance. The world is not going to end if this article gets merged or deleted. 🔥 22spears 🔥 00:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that is a fair characterization of the above editor, who appears to have a long history (at least chronologically) of contributions on various subjects. Their sudden appearance would suggest to me, he or she has seen the discussion here at an external resource for whatever reason, and decided to log in after however many years.
    Otherwise, I note one account that has obviously been created to provide a Keep opinion, and one IP editor providing a Delete opinion. Paranoia around pedophile sockfarming is a routine occurrence here, since the 00s, which of course completely ignores all the other special interest groups (Information State, any one?) with a far more successful history of meddling. That paranoia is used to intimidate editors into withholding or recanting their opinions, lest they be accused of being part of the big pedophile boogeyman conspiracy.
    Meanwhile, established editors have not exactly covered themselves in glory with their behavior off-page, some of which amounts to outright vandalism, and following editors from this discussion elsewhere. The average opinion in favor of Deleting the content of the article under discussion amounts to a kneejerk reaction against the subject and complete refusal to assess the topic for notability; to simply read the article. The above-average opinion in favor of Deleting the content amounts to a notability/policy argument that pushes the boundaries of credibility, given what does appear to pass the same tests.
    And the point remains, that if we cede that Number-1 position in Google, readers will be ending up on a woefully inadequate Wiktionary page, or visiting other sources to find the same, verifiable information next time this topic explodes on Social Media. These will be (as can be established from 1 or 2 minutes browsing the results) primarily fringe - oriented conservative news sites and organizations that use the subject of this article as part of their mission. Giving conspiracy theorists the distinction of being the first to relay verifiable information to an audience, emboldens their narrative, that much is obvious. 86Sedan 01:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    who appears to have a long history (at least chronologically) of contributions on various subjects.
??? Strippy6 has about 30 edits total, with the majority of those being a decade ago. They're miles away from meeting the requirement to be an extended confirmed editor and are barely above autoconfirmed as it is. SilverserenC 02:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The stigma of pedophilia runs so deep that those who can consider the subject rationally are usually reluctant to speak for fear of backlash. Two editors in this very AfD have already expressed concern for their own personal reputations. One has even added a strikethrough to their initial remarks to distance themself from the subject. In current social conditions, it's not only perfectly fine, but expected, to leap to conclusions and assume the worst whenever the topic of attraction to minors is mentioned; anyone who does otherwise is considered suspect. Only one perspective is safe to express; other perspectives involve risk. We're seeing it play out in real time on this AfD. In a tongue-in-cheek manner, I say this is why we can't have nice things. Casdmo (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2023 (UTC) — Casdmo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep If this is any kind of fork, then so are articles such as faggot and tired and emotional. There is no ambiguity in the article about the fact that its topic is a term, not the thing that term refers to. In a sense, the term MAP is itself a real-life analogue of a POV fork, in that people have used it to discuss something in a fringe light that would be taboo if the usual word was used. To 22spear’s credit, the article does not repeat this error and instead attempts to document it. The question is whether the term meets GNG, requiring that it is mentioned, as well as used in reliable sources, hopefully going beyond general collections of pedophilic euphemisms. (Note that using a term does not exclude a source from also being able to mention it.) Previous comments on this page have gathered enough of this kind of “etymological” coverage to demonstrate notability. As to 22spear being an SPA, I don’t believe this points towards bad faith, since their articles tend to provide balanced and well-sourced coverage of their topics, though it is off putting that their user page includes a gif that could be seen as a reference to popotan. small jars tc 15:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's Caramelldansen, anyone who was on the internet 15 years ago knows what it is but I doubt very many know of its origins. I don't think you can read that much into it. --Pokelova (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's Popotan via Caramelldansen, so it's ambiguous. I would like to assume good faith, and that its inclusion is either nothing to do with Popotan, or that it's just innocent edginess if it is, but this kind of ambiguity is exactly what tends to make a good dog whistle. Our article on Popotan is surprisingly quiet about the issue, but you can easily see its connection to these topics by reading the premise of the game. If I were 22spears I would have removed this gif as soon as I saw this nomination to avoid the potentially unintentional but still tasteless association. small jars tc 17:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're assuming they had any idea of the origin. They would have absolutely no reason to remove it in the extremely likely scenario that they didn't know. IMO they still don't have any reason to, since the meme is so utterly abstracted from its source that it's frankly a stretch to make a connection to this. --Pokelova (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair. I am probably being overly paranoid but still felt the gif should be pointed out. small jars tc 17:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any comment germane to the deletion of the article in question, but I feel that this implication must be addressed, and I do not think that the image needs to be "pointed out". Caramelldansen is a widely beloved and completely benign Internet meme consisting of a drawing of two girls dancing to a pop song; whatever issues existed with the user in question were totally independent of this. jp×g 16:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"totally independent"? seems a strange assertion. Surely there is some connectedness between this image right next to some text about "riding dick"? I'd have thought that would have rung anybody's alarm bell ... Bon courage (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My problem was that the image was tasteless in context, and I'm glad that it has since been removed from the user page. I have avoided making any assertions about the specific intent behind it here. I should probably stop even looking at this AfD after submitting this reply, since some of my comments have become slightly too emotional and a user has asked me to climb down from badgering people. small jars tc 20:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
Allyn Walker, one of the proponents of the term "minor attracted person". They added links to a blog post by notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll. They have a draft in their userspace which is a biography of Todd Nickerson, who is associated with the "virtuous pedophile" movement. If you actually take the time to go through their contributions, it is clear that this user has been pushing a not very subtle pro-pedophile POV. MrPinkingShears (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I will also point out that in their two edits to add content to the biography of notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll, 22spears refers to them as "Tom" in their edits, twice, and as both "Tom" and "Thomas" in their edit summaries. This suggests to me that 22spears personally knows O'Carroll, but I will let them explain it for themselves. MrPinkingShears (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC) — MrPinkingShears (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wow, Wikipedia really is exceeding its own high bar, this time. Julie Godforsaken Bindel knows Tom O'Carroll personally. Send her to the gallows. 86Sedan 19:17, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's crazy how everything that could go wrong in an AfD went wrong in this one. The canvassing, socks, the nom being banned, and now this account that only has 4 edits outside this AfD casually showing up to accuse me of personally knowing Tom O'Carroll of all things and shilling for Allyn Walker. I don't even care anymore, even if this article somehow survives, it's not worth it to have to deal with this level of maliciousness that shows up daily on this side of Wikipedia. If you want to know something about me, just hit me up on my talk page and we can civilly talk; it's crazy how most people who have a problem with me, like you and that Bhfg guy, will do anything but calmly try to have an actual conversation with me and ask me questions. The reason why I joined this website was to write about things that I commonly read about, not to participate in gossip wars and petty social media-ish internet beefs. All I do in this website is get a search engine, find good sources and transcribe what they say (and no, it is not POV-pushing if you predominantly write about one or two topics, Pink, I recommend that you read
WP:NPOV). I know that this practice is not well liked among the conspiracy-minded, but still. 🔥 22spears 🔥 20:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
Allyn Walker "Allyn" or James Cantor "James". It wasn't meant to be an accusation of wrongdoing. Since you seem very open to questions - do you know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll? MrPinkingShears (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Using this fact to argue
WP:COI is bordering on paranoid. I would put the use of "Tom" in an ES down to nothing other than the fact that it's shorter than "O'Corroll," and doesn't have any of its pesky last-name orthography to type. small jars tc 21:24, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not arguing that 22spears has a conflict of interest, nor am I paranoid. I have gone through their edits (as anyone can) and I have formed an opinion about their editing based on that analysis. I haven't implied that they are a pedophile (or speculated about images on their user page). I merely pointed out that they used someone's first name in both edits and edit summaries related to notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll, which they didn't do in any other biography that they edited. MrPinkingShears (talk) 21:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't "merely point out", you clearly inferred that it is likely that they either know notorious pedophile Tom O'Carroll personally or are very familiar with them, in relation to their editing of O'Carrolls article, which is nothing other than an accusation of COI. small jars tc 22:01, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Knowing someone is not necessarily indicative of a conflict of interest. If it was, I suspect a lot of Wikipedia editors would be in trouble. MrPinkingShears (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're far off topic now, but you should probably read the policy on this. A disclosed COI is not always a problem; an undisclosed one, which this would be, is. small jars tc 22:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you've argued is rationale for why the article should be deleted. Whether 22spears is an SPA or not is largely irrelevant. Please see
not the person.". The implication of this reply is verging on a personal attack. R alvarez02 (talk) 19:22, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@R alvarez02, my comments are about the edits that 22spears has made and not about them personally. I have reviewed the edits and determined that 22spears is pushing a pro-pedophile point of view. Anyone is welcome to go through the same edits and come to their own conclusion. You are also a single-purpose account, with all of your edits related to pedophilia. There is nothing wrong with being a single-purpose account, but when a single-purpose account pushing a pro-pedophilia view is supported by other single-purpose accounts with low edit counts such as yourself, there is probably reason to dig deeper. MrPinkingShears (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Small jars, the article digs this stuff out from an academic fringe, which prevents NPOV (an unfortunate loophole in
WP:NOTNEWS
cruft.
The term was coined by B4U-ACT, an organization that refuses to say whether child abuse is good or bad. Per Semantic Scholar, the top journal where the term is used is Archives of Sexual Behavior, which many academics are boycotting for promoting fringe science and for ethical misconduct. The academic paper we cite the most, Jahnke, relies on the premise that the only valid label is whichever self-label pedophiles like best. Jahnke say that pedophilia is not undesirable nor pathological, and that Both qualitative and quantitative findings suggest that people who are sexually attracted to children prefer to embrace their sexuality as part of their identity and want this to be reflected in the professional discourse as well (emphasis mine). Jahnke are simply obliging. That's the term's purpose, and due to the fringe sourcing, that's the only stuff we'll be able to cover here, and that's absolutely a POV fork. The "stigma" stuff might sound fine and dandy, but it's used by some as cover to promote abuse[19][20][21] (see, the WP:PARITY loophole in action. I had to dig out a communist newspaper and foreign sources) DFlhb (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. IMO the news coverage, rather than (fringe) academic coverage, of the term and its associated controversies are both the kernel of the notability, and the only reason almost anybody will have heard of the topic or be looking for an article to read on it. NOTNEWS does not apply as the article is neither a) original reporting b) about a particularly recent or short-lived story or c) written in an unencyclopedic news style.
2. That's the term's purpose, and due to the fringe sourcing, that's the only stuff we'll be able to cover here, and that's absolutely a POV fork – Your fears are a result of disregard for the use–mention distinction: Yes, this term is/has been used for bad purposes, but by covering them, we do not necessarily endorse them, but are in fact able to prevent such deceptions through neutral information. (If the article doesn't do this well enough, it simply needs cleanup) It would not be a POV fork unless it were directly parroting what these research subjects said: even this “fringe” piece of academic writing (which seems to be from an RS journal) does not go so far, but only reports on their feelings. small jars tc 02:07, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
by covering them, we do not necessarily endorse them We're not covering them. Seems like you didn't read my reply, nor my first post here. DFlhb (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the article and your response to my comment. I have not read your own comment. small jars tc 02:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After a thorough search, including likely places organized "pedophile activism" goes down, this is all I could find:
(Redacted)
In a resigned tone, it mentions selective deletionism (this is a completely valid point) and the fact we give Hitler's dog and varied gender topics ample coverage. This is hardly evidence of muh organized "pro-pedophile" activism we hear about from prophets of doom such as the now-banned editor in the discussion above.
Sure, they probably have a RocketChat or any number of discord channels to organize this kind of thing, but it's not like Wikipedia deletionists don't have access to the same tools for canvassing (and the distinct advantage of aged accounts to back it up) see for example the 5 delete opinions within 5 hours above this very comment.
The compromise solution (completely unnecessary) is probably going to be something like this:
Redirect to chronophilia#Controversy surrounding development of language
Under this heading, we would very briefly mention the body of work cited by B4U-ACT, Nottingham Trent University, etc, and then go into considerable detail with respect to the resulting controversies, and how they came about. --86Sedan 08:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The term is predominantly used by mental health professionals, academics, and child advocacy organizations (John’s Hopkins’ The Moore Center for Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse, Association for Sexual Abuse Prevention, The Global Prevention Project, etc.). The purpose of using the term is to help foster a less stigmatizing environment to get these people help before they offend, and to prevent recidivism/reoffending. It also covers not only pedophilia, but also hebephilia and maybe even ephebophilia. So it’s an all-encompassing term that’s more accurate and precise than the colloquial use of “pedo”. The article is also useful in that it debunks misinformation on the topic that the public has been exposed to through various right-wing media outlets. Observer42436 (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sickening attempt to rename or water down from the meaning of pedophilia. no way. - Roxy the dog 09:55, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have an entire category for euphemisms Roxy, you don't have to like them but they exist and are talked about in sociolinguistic settings. Other people have given legitimate reasons for their beliefs that the page should be deleted, agree or disagree, but I do not see your argument as legitimate. --Pokelova (talk) 10:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dont be silly. A whole article on a euphamism for pedophilia. you need an attitude adjustment. If I change my reply to include all the very sensible delete ivotes, from incredibly experienced Users I see here would that make you withdraw your silly comment, Hmmmm - Roxy the dog 12:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This phrase, MAP, is itself a sickening attempt to rename or water down from the meaning of pedophilia. By deleting an article that documents this attempt, and allows people encountering the term for the first time to understand the real history behind it, we are only enabling the abuse to continue. small jars tc 12:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt The use of the term can be included in the pedophilia article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Support either salting, or, if we redirect, full-protecting the redirect and salting the non-hyphenated alternative spelling. If we redirect, the page should be deleted and redirected from scratch so the page history isn't kept (due to the evidence I posted at ANI that people identifying as "pro-MAPs" have started linking to the Wikipedia article for advocacy). DFlhb (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whether MAPs find the article useful in their advocacy is largely irrelevant to us and to this discussion, in much the same way I told another user recently that the photos of nude children in our article on Puberty would stay regardless of whether a pedophile found them arousing. Letting a fringe dictate what you delete seems equally bad as letting them dictate what is written. --Pokelova (talk) 13:09, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely is relevant, and the fact is that deleting (and especially salting) this article will serve the purposes of no one better than it serves pedophiles and abusers, who wish to continue using this term to organise without the kind of scrutiny our coverage can provide, and to lesser extent the interests of homophobes who wish to use it as a basis for conspiracy theories. The article and its author might be questionable enough that we need to return to square one and rewrite the article, but it is notable and absolutely needs to exist as a matter of ethics. small jars tc 13:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear POV fork. If the term exists, it only exists to describe Pedophilia, so a redirect may be appropriate iff people may be using it as a search term, regardless, it should be salted and/or protected as a redirect to prevent recreation. --Jayron32 14:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is like saying "if the term faggot exists, it only exists to describe homosexuality, so a redirect may be appropriate," except that MAP is not only notable as a roundabout slur for LGBT people, but also, simultaneously, as a euphemism/dog whistle among actual pedophiles. small jars tc 14:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't though; but you keep trying to deflect legitimate concerns by bringing up unrelated analogies. --Jayron32 14:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The analogy is only illustrative. The point is that, being both a euphemism and a kind of slur, this is a term with a lot of independent connotations and notability. Redirecting is giving insufficient weight to its history and ongoing usage. small jars tc 14:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can I suggest another key point, small jars, that badgering people is not going to get you anywhere? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to AGF, but it seems that either everyone claiming that this is a fork hasn't even looked at the article, or I have an extremely wrong idea of what a fork is. small jars tc 14:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

several users blocked for advocacy in violation of the Wikipedia:Child protection policy.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not relevant and misleading. You failed to point out that Jeremy Malcolm runs a child protection organization below that, saying "the current state of the art in our field acknowledges that there are pedophiles who actually are just as staunchly opposed to child abuse as anyone else, despite their own very unfortunate sexual interest". You can see their website here: (Redacted) (Not doxxing, it's listed on their profile). It's clear they are actually dedicated to child protection, not pro-pedophilia advocacy. User:R Alvarez02 (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you do not get to strike that comment. How haven’t you been banned yet for your clear pro-pedofile advocacy? 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:F984:C304:9842:CD8 (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) — 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:F984:C304:9842:CD8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It's an incorrect comment. Saying "should be construed as clear pro-pedophile advocacy." is very misleading given the author of the comment runs a child protection organization. At the very least, the last sentence should be striked due to it making a pretty absurd accusation. R alvarez02 (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made the mistake of clicking that link and reading some of Mr. Malcolm’s vile content. He’s actually advocating for less censorship and fewer restrictions in these areas. Everyone supporting this page with a Keep should be thoroughly examined and removed from Wikipedia. I’ll now distance myself from this conversation. 2604:2D80:6A8D:E200:F984:C304:9842:CD8 (talk) 04:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty cut-and-dry personal attack, saying "Mr. Malcolm’s vile content", referring to an editor. R alvarez02 (talk) 04:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I am a professional in this field, thank you very much. I am weighing in because this is one of the articles that is squarely within the field of my expertise. I will thank you not to cast aspersions on my motivations. Jeremy Malcolm (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am a professional in this field, Yea, that was my take, too. Zaathras (talk) 04:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s different from pedophile because it also encompasses ephebophiles. The end. Dronebogus (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Yadav Murder case Ballia

Hemant Yadav Murder case Ballia (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 tragic, this is simply another murder. It happened so recently, that it is difficult to ascertain whether or not this will have any lasting coverage, but as for now,

WP:NOTNEWS. Onel5969 TT me 12:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: WP:SUSPECT vios Jack4576 (talk) 15:06, 11 May 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 Procedural close‎. The page creator redirected the article to

(non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

2023 Espoo bridge collapse

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

WP:GNG CutlassCiera 13:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Aguilar

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

article created and written entirely by subject in direct violation of

WP:AUTO autobiography rules, clear conflict of interest SaltLakeMists (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete
  • Article created and written by two accounts belonging to the article subject, in direct violation of Wikipedia autobiography rules
    WP:AUTO
  • users previously pointed this out in article talk page
  • article subject responded in the talk page taking ownership of the edits and writing
  • user accounts Rebeccaaguilar50 and Rebecca Aguilar were both used to only create, write, and edit this article
  • subject has used their accounts to add themselves in other Wikipedia lists
  • comments in talk page suggest there may be differing viewpoints on the facts surrounding some of the main topics in the article, calling into question the contents
SaltLakeMists (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable television presenter, sources used are blogs and sites related to the person. I can't find any we can use either. Oaktree b (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems clear:
Fails
WP:AUTO
, entire article was written by subject
Subject admits to this in Talk page and uses multiple accounts SaltLakeMists (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: references #6, #9, #10, and #11 collectively amount to SIGCOV Jack4576 (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: BLP, fails GNG and BIO. Sources are promo and brief routine news, nothing that meets SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth from IS RS. BEFORE only found promo materials.
    WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  16:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blue1 destinations

List of Blue1 destinations (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)

In a

WP:NOTTRAVEL is also relevant and also failed here. EDIT: A subsequent AN discussion concluded that these articles should be AFD'd in an orderly manner with a link to the original RFC discussion and that it should be taken into account in any close
.

In addition this article is a clear failure of notability standards, as the only sources cited appear to be a PR website, the Tampere Convention Bureau, and a 404 link to the Anna Aero website. None of these are independent, reliable sources. My

WP:NOT
and RFC problems were over-come some how.

In reality, even if

WP:CORP and extend beyond specialist/industry press. FOARP (talk) 13:04, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge with Blue1 Jack4576 (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jack4576 - For a merge to be appropriate, these destinations would have to be reliably sourced. FOARP (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{cn}} can be added, would be a shame to just delete this work Jack4576 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No point keeping stuff that isn’t reliably sourced and can be deleted at any time. We already had an RFC on this content. FOARP (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing the point of merging, agree this is
WP:NOT Dronebogus (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete as per above, this list is essentially useless. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gajol Haji Nakoo Muhammad High School

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

This has been to AfD before, but that was before

WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose: unless nominator is able to provide assurances that they have conducted in concentrated in print and/or local media. (I note that the local language is not English). This is a weak nomination and should be opposed on the basis of WP:BEFORE, and the outcome of RfC on secondary school notability unless that can be demonstrated. Jack4576 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
conducted concentrated searches in* Jack4576 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked ProQuest and Nexis for print sources. The school's website was entirely in English when it was live and as LibStar notes, there are only English sources cited in the Bengali Wikipedia version. I think that's enough due diligence, but if significant independent coverage in non-English sources subsequently emerges then the article can be recreated; I don't think that's a good argument for keeping a poor-quality article based on insufficient English-language sources in the meantime. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm satisfied these searches are sufficient for WP's policies. Delete is a legitimate, albiet sad outcome. Jack4576 (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You will need to strike out your "oppose" above. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

La Salle High School Faisalabad

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

Lacks significant coverage for a stand-alone article. Fails

WP:NORG. BookishReader (talk) 12:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Oppose: unless nominator is able to provide assurances that they have conducted in concentrated in print and/or local media. This is a weak nomination and should be opposed on the basis of WP:BEFORE, and the outcome of RfC on secondary school notability unless that can be demonstrated Jack4576 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did a thorough WP:BEFORE. I use ProQuest for my research purposes. I'm a Pakistani by birth and a native speaker of Urdu language. I searched all the major newspapers in Pakistan. For your information, there are large number of English-language newspapers in Pakistan. Big three are: The News International, Dawn, and The Express Tribune. I searched in these newspapers and using its transliteration in Urdu as well. I'm adding transliteration in the article, so you can search as well. BookishReader (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied, Delete if you wish. Its a sad thing to do and will make the website less encyclopedic, however, you at least have WP's policy endorsement to do so. Jack4576 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You need to strike out your "oppose" above. LibStar (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Defence Authority Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed College

Defence Authority Sheikh Khalifa Bin Zayed College (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 couldn't find coverage about this school. Fails

WP:GNG. BookishReader (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

•Delete- No reliable sources can be found PaulGamerBoy360 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Sadegh Amiri

Mohammad Sadegh Amiri (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)

Cross-Wiki Spam, Iran Spam ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 08:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless his citation factor is high enough, this is PROMO and reads like a resume. Oaktree b (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the sites posted are valid
https://cv.pnu.ac.ir/HomePage/EN/mohammadsadegh.amiri 113.203.13.158 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not relevant. --Yamla (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, look inside the page, there are many sources, they are scientists and system scientists 113.203.13.158 (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Google scholar searches demonstrate he has a relatively solid citation count, plus he is a full professor at a prominent Iranian university, which is #1 WP:NACADEMIC Jack4576 (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is on the site https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm?method=simpleSearch&cqlMode=true&query=nid%3D1213119677 113.203.58.114 (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse long thread containing
WP:MILL
activities of subject, and explanations of why they do not contribute to notability
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 2006 Fox journalists kidnapping. The most decisive argument is that the organization, insofar as it exists, has no notability outside of the article in which it is already treated. Significant coverage of the organization itself has yet to be demonstrated. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Jihad Brigades

Holy Jihad Brigades (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)

Pretty much no evidence of

Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Addendum: In hindsight, I suppose a redirect to
Iskandar323 (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:51, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple BBC articles on this incident. Meets SIGCOV. WP:NTEMP. Jack4576 (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the one incident, which has its own page:
Iskandar323 (talk) 09:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Wasn't aware of that page. Withdrawing Keep vote. Jack4576 (talk) 13:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My bad possibly - might have been an idea to include that link in the opening comment.
Iskandar323 (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Agree - these are all passing mentions, not
WP:V-fail. FOARP (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed, it's a name so generic that it could easily have been a mistranslation or translation error that simply got replicated across sources.
Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, throw in
WP:NOTNEWS as well: we're getting on 20 years from when the last ever known event that this potentially-non-existent group was ever linked to occurred, and there's no long-term coverage. FOARP (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corporal (band)

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

fails

WP:BAND --FMSky (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion: previously PRODded.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: fails WP:BAND, and also SIGCOV, however, (1) the prominence of one of its members, and (2) contemporaneous coverage from both BrooklynVegan, and AV Club Chicago leads me to the conclusion that this band was/is notable enough at a local level to be GNG notable Jack4576 (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails GNG and ORG. Sources in article are not IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. Keep vote mentions the lack of SIGCOV, the point about prominate member is covered under NOTINHERITED. I don't see properly sourced material for a merge, but no objection to a consensus redirect if one emerges.  // Timothy :: talk  00:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails GNG and notability is not inherited. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 16:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abed Chaudhury

Abed Chaudhury (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)

From my searches I don't believe he meets

WP:AUTHOR. LibStar (talk) 04:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: found an independent article from theafricareport.com but I'm not confident this is a reliable source. Opened RfC Jack4576 (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the reporting on subjects work by The Africa Report amounts to SIGCOV by an independent reliable source. That coupled with the rest of the scattered sources throughout the article is enough for notability IMO Jack4576 (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If his citation count isn't high enough, it's a no. I can't find much else for additional sourcing to support keeping the article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence

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

Subject does not meet NORG - there is insufficient coverage in depth from reliable secondary sources to warrant inclusion. The only two references within are routine coverage. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am adding more sources to the article but considering it is a local organization and one of the largest domestic abuse support groups in Kansas I believe it meets the criteria for inclusion. Des Vallee (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not satisfactory to say "it's a large domestic abuse support group" and therefore meets criteria for inclusion. You actually need to point out which sources cover the article subject in-depth. This article needs to meet NORG in order to warrant inclusion and a thorough WP:BEFORE check shows plenty of small routine coverage "hits" but this does not justify inclusion. Even a local business often will populate a number of hits in a search engine. We need evidence of sustained, indepth coverage. Not hits here and there briefly mentioning the name of the organisation. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This source for example does not count towards notability. It simply says Jessa Farmer, public policy coordinator for the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, said current Kansas statute left victims who endured years of violence to refile annually for extension of a protection order. She said the burden was on victims to navigate the court system, often without legal representation due to a shortage of attorneys in Kansas willing to take these cases.
    That is the epitome of "routine" and trivial coverage. The article has nothing to do with the organisation itself. It's about domestic abuse and they've just quoted someone from this organisation. That does not substantiate a claim to notability. MaxnaCarta (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MaxnaCarta This source per example is entirely about the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence, a quick search shows it has been mentioned at least 245 times by reliable sources. Des Vallee (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s one source and not of sufficient depth to meet MNCORP. 245 hits means nothing unless the coverage is significant. Trivial mentions are not sufficient to meet NCORP. MaxnaCarta (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep passes
    WP:GNG. A quick search of news articles shows a measureable number of good sources.--Paul McDonald (talk
    )
@Paulmcdonald: Please list the best three sources you believe are reliable, secondary sources that demonstrate significant coverage so I can withdraw the nomination? MaxnaCarta (talk) 23:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Click the "news link and you'll see plenty.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald I did just that. I’ve acknowledged that there are hundreds of “hits”. Irrelevant. Many organisations get lots of trivial mentions. Doesn’t mean they’re sufficiently notable for a stand alone article in an encyclopaedia which requires significant coverage to be included. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big differnece between
WP:ORG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: SIGCOV gives rise to a presumption that a subject is notable. SIGCOV is not a requirement for an otherwise notable subject to be notable under GNG.
As
WP:NOTROUTINE Jack4576 (talk) 09:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
GNG doesn’t apply. ORGCRIT applies which does require sigcov. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 08:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 04:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to recent comment about the quality of coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They specifically fail
WP:SIRS. scope_creepTalk 10:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree, I find that the sources not only in the article, but listed above as examples and found through basic online searches far exceed the the criteria at
WP:SIRS. These are not "brief, passing mentions" but are instead the heart of many of the news articles. They are not trivial mentions, they are material sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:24, 12 May 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 John Edwards extramarital affair. ✗plicit 06:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rielle Hunter

Rielle Hunter (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

[majestic titan] 15:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Hunter wrote a book that has been cited in scholarly articles.1. She is discussed, still, in news stories about political scandals 2, 3, 4. She writes about equestrian sports 5. Deleting this article was discussed on the talk page 14 years ago ... and it's still here. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 21:48, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
[majestic titan] 01:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Hunter is notable in both a conventional sense (for better or worse her relationship changed the course of history and continues to factor in discussions of political issues) and by
WP:GNG. The current article includes reliable sources focused on Hunter as the main topic. The "separate information" (the Poole character appears in five books by the way) may seem less relevant if the topic is John Edwards, but the topic is Hunter here. With hundreds of scholarly articles 1 referring to Hunter and with her abiding presence in discussions of political scandals, I think it would be a mistake to make her a mere section of the Edwards entries. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
@
[majestic titan] 15:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are split between those advocating Keep vs. those preferring a Merge. Given the age of this scandal, I'm surprised there are not earlier AFDs for this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'd prefer a merge; outside of that "event", there isn't really anything for notability. Scandal perhaps, nothing for GNG. Non-notable as a producer, the book/author isn't meeting AUTHOR that I can see. And frankly, the article has more info about the affair than the rest of the individual's life, pointing to what's potentially notable in the story. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete 13 May 2023 by Spicy: G5 Created by a banned or blocked user (Mainul Saiman) in violation of ban or block. (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Shyamal Sylhet

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

The sourcing is not reliable and does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. The topic is not wiki notable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page creator is not a confirmed sockpuppet. Please wait for confirmation before tagging articles for speedy deletion on these grounds. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see wikidata. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's May Wrong, I am not known about ( user:Rnwiki-global ). Mainul Saiman (talk) 15:35, 12 May 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horatio Stockton Howell

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

One of many casualties of the

WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep: I think the circumstances of his story and his role in that battle are enough for me to regard this person as notable and therefore would prefer to keep this entry. Jack4576 (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the references we have on him are very recent: the quote I give is from this year; there is a page devoted to him in this 2020 book. StAnselm (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Just FYI, the quoted author Bruce Davis heads the Gettysburg Civil War roundtable, so he's an expert. BusterD (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on a quick google search. I've applied three marginal sources already. I'm seeing material like this which seems to indicate this person is a part of Gettysburg lore, being a chaplain who was shot for refusing to surrender his sword. This book about Union chaplains seems to indicate Howell's death is the "most famous" of six Union chaplains mistakenly killed as combatants. There's a heck of a lot of Gettysburg lore, I'll grant, not all of it warranting notability. Looking at newspapers.com I'm seeing over three dozen Pennsylvania mentions over the years (including a few claimed eyewitnesses). This book says of his commemoration “...the first battlefield monument to perpetuate the memory of a chaplain slain in battle...”. Gettysburg figures are notoriously hard to kill at AfD, so to speak. BusterD (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The scope and breadth of sources about Howell that are already in the article establish the claim of notability based on his life's work and death at Gettysburg. Alansohn (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the reliable book and newspaper sources in the article that show a pass of
    WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete fails
    WP:GNG, passing minor references insufficient to establish notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There is significant coverage such as several paragraphs here imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not
WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The Gettysburg Times is a regional newspaper printed since 1902 so seems to be a reliable source, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete 13 May 2023 by Spicy: G5 Created by a banned or blocked user (Mainul Saiman) in violation of ban or block. (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Daily Jalalabad

Daily Jalalabad (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 regional newspaper in Bangladesh. The article shows zero evidence of notability. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page creator is not a blocked, confirmed sockpuppet. Please do not make these accusations based on suspicions alone. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see wikidata. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 12:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SPI process first, because he is currently not blocked for this reason on enwiki. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 03:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
SPI is ongoing, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Parvej096388. Although there is a 90% possibility that the user is related to this case, the implementation of CSD G5 still has to wait for the final announcement of the conclusion. ALSTROEMERIA🌸Čijukas Kuvajamas 03:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hammy Down Versace

Hammy Down Versace (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)

Has done nothing to satisfy

WP:MUSICBIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Seconded Jack4576 (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dan

Paul Dan (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)

Lacking significant coverage to meet

WP:BIO. Has not played top professional level in Australia which is Super Rugby. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I found these other articles (1), and (2) but am still not convinced this person is notable Jack4576 (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Places in Virginia with names involving "Dale"

Places in Virginia with names involving "Dale" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The title says it all. Fails

WP:NLIST by a wide, wide margin. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Dalete This is one of the most pointless articles I've ever seen, and the best example of
WP:NOT I'll have for a long time. Chaotic Enby (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Kaplan

Jeremy Kaplan (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 looks like someone's resume. The major claim to notability here seems to be the blog that he contributed to. However, the blog's nominations would seem better summarized at PCMag instead of an article about one of the magazine's editors. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's an LGBTQ piano teacher with the same name that has more coverage than this person. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Woodworth

Cary Woodworth (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 indication of notability Amigao (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. RL0919 (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

McCaleb Burnett

AfDs for this article:
McCaleb Burnett (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)

Delete. Non-notable subject. No notable information since previous deletion 15 years ago.

Update: A lot of work was done on this page by Geniustechwizard4556, a sockpuppet of MetaWiz4331, who appears to have a notorious history of creating pages for non-notable actors. AdyFieldston (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more input from established, unconnected editors would be helpful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:43, 11 May 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. RL0919 (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Furr

AfDs for this article:
Grover Furr (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)

Dearth of reliable sources discussing the ludicrious claims proposed by this fringe "historian". Most sources that cover Grover Furr's theories are either rather unreliable or self-published(including by him), with only a few historians making offhanded remarks harshly criticising his work making claims unverifiable; there are no good secondary sources that could be used to write more than a few sentences discussing one or 2 of his many books.

Failure to meet notability guidelines due to lack of relevance of works. Originalcola (talk) 02:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a previous discussion on this same topic indicating a certain degree of controversy around this article yet given the fact that the article does not seem to have been improved much since the original nomination I felt it necessary to repropose deletion. Originalcola (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khawaja Habibullah Nowsheri Shrine

Khawaja Habibullah Nowsheri Shrine (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)

Khawaja Habibullah Nowsheri Shrine

It isn't entirely clear whether this article is about a Sufi poet, or about a shrine at his grave, but it doesn't satisfy

reliable sources
have written about either the person or the place. None of the references are secondary. They include a map, which shows that the place exists.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 google.com/maps A map showing location of the shrine Yes No Yes No
2 thekashmirimages.com An article about the Sufi poet, Khawaja HabibUlLah Nowsheri Yes About the poet, but not about the shrine Yes No
3 YouTube Appears to be about Sufism in Kashmir Yes Not about the shrine No No

If the article satisfied notability, it would need to be tagged for heavy copy-editing for grammar, usage, and style, but it doesn't pass notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on

"soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:22, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Mavila Vishwanathan Nair

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

Article looks like a CV and there is no inherent notability in any of the positions he held. Very little in gnews and supplied sources do not meet

WP:SIGCOV except one by Union Bank but that's a primary source. 2 of the sources are dead links. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_May_11&oldid=1156340090"