Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 September 6

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.

Water Channel

Water Channel (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)

Completely unsourced article of a now defunct TV sports channel. Tagged for more sources since 2019, but no improvements have been made since then. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Sports. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unable to find any sources during a
  WP:BEFORE check. Might be a hoax. User:Let'srun 16:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Jackson Maier

Jackson Maier (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)

After attempting a few searches, The only remotely notable thing I see about this guy is that he pretended to be an Irish Lord a couple years ago. I don't see any

• Delete I can see no grounds for notability, alas. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I vote no. The user who awarded this page has an extensive history of picking fights with other users and has been reprimanded for it. Administrator does not mean abuser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faits1789 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Faits1789 has removed the AFD tag 3 times now, and then moved the article to draft space. I don't have time or patience to try right now to clean this up. --Onorem (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why there are Admins -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Administrator does not mean not an abuser, it means you have power. Can you post your reasoning for concurring with me on notability as listed on my talk pale? I'm actually trying to get something done Faits1789 (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times, Playbill aren't sources? I'm not sure what internet you're using but the citations are there. If you want to delete the oage, delete the page. If you want to improve something that your fellow administrator thinks meets notability criteria, please help. I cannot ask more than I already have. Faits1789 (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure exactly what's happened over the course of 24 hours. This went from my first published article with a lot of great help to what seems to be incorrect deleting. Informsnow19 (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable acting credits, no serious coverage beyond the "Irish Lord" hoax. Fails NBIO/GNG.-
  KH-1 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Yoselyn López

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

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

The subject has earned at least four caps for the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and El Salvador. JTtheOG (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 08:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of El Salvador women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roxana Vega

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

)

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

Redirect to

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and El Salvador. JTtheOG (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 08:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of PBS member stations. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of PBS member stations (table)

List of PBS member stations (table) (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)

Duplicates List of PBS member stations. Fuddle (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, Lists, and United States of America. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not a duplicate. This is a sortable table, which is probably a more convenient way for users to access the data. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'm not seeing the need for a separate article for a tabular form. If consensus is to shift to such a form, that change should be made on the current article.
  Talkback) 21:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete This is not a sortable table of member stations, it's a table of just five stations. Anyone is welcome to add tables to the main article, but this page is useless and unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 22:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• delete and consider reformatting the main list to present some of this info; maybe go to a tabular format. But I don't see the reason to have two different versions at this point. Mangoe (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:CHEAP, to preserve history in case someone wants to pick up the project again. I'd consider draftify, but that might be a backdoor deletion. —siroχo 05:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to List of PBS member stations if possible. If not Delete as this existing article is rather small while List of PBS member stations is more comprehensive. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the point of redirecting. Mangoe (talk) 00:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Independent Dream Machine

Independent Dream Machine (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 company. All movies are red-linked, founder does not have his own page (or I would have redirected). The external links do not establish notability. Search results are merely entries in database-type websites. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Companies, and Pennsylvania. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 21:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unable to find any sources during a
  WP:GNG. User:Let'srun 15:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Marin

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

)

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

The subject has earned 12 caps for the

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Luxembourg. JTtheOG (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Luxembourg women's international footballers as ATD. GiantSnowman 08:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

)

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

There are two claims here. The first is politician. The second is businessman. I do not believe the subject fits either. Under politician, he was a candidate for Congress and Chief of Staff to a US Senator. The election was a typical race consisting of typical run of the mill coverage. The arguments made in

• Redirect to 2010 United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates for the US House of Representatives. Our community's understanding of candidates for US House changed since 2010. Any relevant information can be included on the election page. --Enos733 (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  ATD. Sal2100 (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Alabama. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect This should redirect to the 2010 Alabama congressional election page, as noted above. Go4thProsper (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect losing candidates are not de facto notable, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with a new AfD discussions after an election if someone loses. SportingFlyer T·C 17:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ankur Warikoo

Ankur Warikoo (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 Youtuber, running ads all around, no significant business executive roles, selling his courses online via ads, CLEARLY fails WP:NOTABILITY, created by UPE (now blocked) Fishgrail2 (talk) 14:36, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This person is a public figure who has been creating impactful content and has significant news coverage in independent non-paid media. Indeed he runs a lot of paid ads and a lot of people feel bothered by the recurrent ads but that cannot create an exclusion. Diptanshu 💬 17:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good to see you back after so long, can you please share the references that are fully featured and independent non-paid media? Fishgrail2 (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and India. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• delete most of the coverage I came across seem to press meet/interviews. I also have doubts some coverage might be paid. In any case, subject doesn't have enough significant coverage in
  general notability criteria. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• delete as per nomination Worldiswide (talk) 11:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

Sonic Palette

Sonic Palette (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 much external SIGCOV, seems to fail

Delete No sourcing at all for this musical device. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Products, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy McGee

Timothy McGee (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)

Although there is a Reception section, I don't think it warrants the character's notability. The reviews may prove some kind of notability, but they seem to only mention him in passing. A quick Google search does not give much to prove the character's notability.

I am sending this to AfD because I may be wrong and there are independent, reliable sources that don't just talk about him in passing (see Ziva David as an example). If there is not, I would recommend a merge and/or redirect to List of NCIS characters#Timothy McGee. Spinixster (chat!) 08:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Television. Spinixster (chat!) 08:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I observe that the only reason given for this deletion request is the belief that the subject is not notable enough. I observe that the last time this article was nominated for deletion was over fifteen years ago, when the show was more popular. This is an appropriate time to reevaluate it. I tried to plug "cultural impact of Timothy McGee" into Google and got a lot of hits for a non-fictional musician. I was able to find some analysis [8] [9] [10] but it wasn't the clear and immediate trip I had for same-show character Jethro Gibbs. I note some problems with the Wikipedia article. The criticial reception section needs updating because the character changed personality in season eight and changed role after the departure of the actor who played the lead. I'm going to sum my feelings up as Weak keep. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The sources provided are mostly

  WP:NOTTVTROPES and Looper is unreliable because it is a content farm (owned by Static Media), so it is not enough to demonstrate notability. It might be better to search "Timothy McGee NCIS" instead. Spinixster (chat!) 03:38, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. I see no
  WP:RSP determination that Looper is unreliable. BD2412 T 21:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @BD2412 See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 270#Reliability level of Looper.com?. Spinixster (chat!) 07:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A two-person question-and-answer exchange on the subject is hardly definitive. Looper does have a published editorial policy, and I have seen no assertion that it is not observed. BD2412 T 14:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:NOTTVTROPES, so they do not prove notability. Spinixster (chat!) 14:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Since you have invoked these policies, I welcome you to explain how a 1,000+ word article examining the evolution of a character (in a way that fans of the series apparently dislike) is either trivial or a "TV trope". BD2412 T 15:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @BD2412 The problem is, does that article really prove a character's notability? Just because fans hated a character's evolution does not necessarily mean that the character is notable. Spinixster (chat!) 10:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We are not talking about fan tweets or Facebook posts, though, but about a media outlet publication of substantial length on a subject routinely seen in millions of homes. I have also now added reference to an Entertainment Weekly article that also touches on the evolution of the character. BD2412 T 14:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:N. Sure, some people may hate Timothy McGee's storyline, but does that give him enough notability for a separate page? Do all characters that are negatively received deserve a separate page? There need to be more sources that prove the character's individual notability, and an interview might not be the best choice since it's primary (WP:Interviews). Spinixster (chat!) 10:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I was referring to the fact that there is additional coverage in a reliable source. The interview is not "primary" for the fictional character, Timothy McGee, because that subject is a fictional character, and this is not some sort of in-universe interview. BD2412 T 17:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if the best thing the nom can do to refute sources that others have raised is cite Wikipedia policies about how we present information rather than about sourcing, this is rebuttable evidence that there is no real argument against the sources in question. GNG is passed, article stays, discuss redirect/merge on the talk page if desired. Jclemens (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:Notability is a policy on what is notable and what is not, and it also includes information about sourcing.

  WP:NOTTVTROPES

  are policies / essays saying that trivial information should not be included and/or does not prove notability. This is important because this is a fictional element from a popular show, and thus trivial sources would be common, but that does not mean that the character has SIGCOV.

  WP:Interviews is an essay about interviews. I brought this up because a source that is an interview with the actor was added, and it is a primary source, which means that it does not prove notability.

  Elaborating on the sourcing issues:

  • if a show has SIGCOV, that means that show is notable, but not necessarily the characters, unless there are sources proving the character's individual notability:
    • The reviews only mention him in passing, and if sources mentioning him in passing are enough, that would mean that other characters that are obviously not notable, like characters that only appear in 1 or 2 episodes, would be deemed notable if they are described in a few sources.
    • But there are a lot of sources about only the character, and/or the character is one of the main characters, you'd say. In this case, it depends on the content. If it's trivia, that's not notable. It's very common to find storyline summaries when searching for a fictional element. Does that mean that Element X is notable because there are sources summarizing the storylines or trivia regarding the element? No, more sources would be needed, like reception and analysis for the element in question. If it's reception and analysis, it depends on the source, how in depth it goes into the subject matter, etc. I have experience editing fictional character pages and have been involved in arguments regarding some characters' notability. I have searched on Google per
      WP:BEFORE
      , but no sources that satisfy the notability guideline came up.
  • popularity does not equal notability, as said in
    WP:BFDI
    ). In this instance, the character's storyline and evolution are heavily discussed by fans, but does that really prove individual notability? Again, in WP:N, notability has to have significant coverage, so another reason would have to be added.

  I don't see what you are saying about "cite Wikipedia policies about how we present information rather than about sourcing," I had never cited Wikipedia policies on how to present information. Would you care to elaborate, @Jclemens? Spinixster (chat!) 09:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TRIVIA is an MoS element, hence a guideline rather than a policy or essay. It says absolutely nothing about what sources are acceptable or not; Like any MoS element, it reflects how we (Wikipedia) cover items. NOTTVTROPES is an essay about differentiating our coverage--again, presentation of data here on Wikipedia, not sourcing--from that website. Your statement that I had never cited Wikipedia policies on how to present information. is technically correct since neither are policies, but otherwise not accurate, in that you tried to use an MoS element and an essay to justify not using certain websites as sourcing. That is a category error, and demonstrates that your arguments are void. The fact that you made reference to a real content guideline, N, does nothing to remove the inappropriate arguments undermining your position. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well then that's my mistake. My point with the TRIVIA / NOTTVTROPES can be deemed invalid, but other points are still valid. Spinixster (chat!) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sphinixster is just making us work for it. Without people checking sources, at least some Wikieditors would be tempted to skimp, especially if they're fans of the fictional property or proponents of the concept. Any filing with a yes/no format is going to make people feel like opponents. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have already said I did a

WP:NOTDATABASE. Spinixster (chat!) 01:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I have added some additional sources. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412, I would recommend using Template:Cite book and Template:Sfn for the book sources. The other sources seem fine for now. Spinixster (chat!) 03:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was merge‎ to Wii Fit (tentatively, though if there is consensus to merge to the character list or to both, that's of course fine as well). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:04, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Fit Trainer

Wii Fit Trainer (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 the same problem as

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - sadly despite the reality that
  WP:GNG. Quite why this is a thing, I can't parse, sigh. JMWt (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:Assume good faith. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean but I assume you were misunderstanding my comment because I wasn't clear. I don't like the fact that a character in Wii Fit is notable but I suspect it is.

I didn't - and don't now - make any comment about the good faith of the nom, those who edited the page or anyone else involved. JMWt (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to List of Super Smash Bros. series characters or Wii Fit. Besides the one research paper, the majority of coverage is extremely trivial. Nominator's assertions appear to be correct, though I am open to changing my !vote if significant coverage is demonstrated here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'd argue what's there is enough to justify the article's existence, though all of it being Smash related is a bit iffy. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hilariously before doing this I thought maybe there might've been something for all the um, well, porn the character's female counterpart had gotten, but even that was a dud after searching.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's honestly kind of funny Pokelego999 (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The reception section shows reliable sources are reviewing the character. Dream Focus 20:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which sources are you identifying as significant coverage? Sergecross73 msg me 20:27, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They all comment on the character, not just giving passing mentions that she is there. It isn't like List of cancelled Nintendo Switch games where they just mention briefly that a company stated they aren't porting something to the Nintendo Switch. Dream Focus 21:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You're

  WP:THREE? Sergecross73 msg me 23:41, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep - despite the sources mostly covering their appearance in Smash Bros., this has little impact on their notability in my eyes. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:21, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a plausible defense of the naysayers, but it doesn't really advance any argument in support of notability. Sergecross73 msg me 01:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge covergae largely focused about Smash Bros. and the rest of the sources are trivia. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:08, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Oinkers42. It's also worth mentioning that Wii Fit Trainer is not well-known outside of Super Smash Bros., hence coverage mostly pertaining to that is natural. MoonJet (talk) 10:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @MoonJet: if they're not well known outside of that game then they're not notable outside of it by your own admission, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - no evidence the subject meets the GNG, not a single Keep stance has given a valid argument for keeping it, they've just been piggy-backing
  WP:VAGUEWAVE arguments on each other. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  To clarify, similar to my stance and how it was closed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Villager_(Animal_Crossing), I believe the best redirect/merge target to be at the game that the subject originated from (in this scenario, Wii Fit.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing to merge, it'll just be deleted/redirected. The reception section is large and shows enough reliable sources have written about this character. Enough valid content to have its own article, no sense eliminating that for a brief mention in another article. Dream Focus 19:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not following any of this. What do you mean there's "nothing to merge"? And its been almost a full week and you still haven't provided your

  WP:THREE. I'm honestly surprised this was relisted with such vague rationales being thrown out here. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  You won't merge anything, you will just put a redirect to it. You couldn't fit all the valid content from this article over into the other one, it'd be too long.

  WP:Three is just an essay, and the creator of it actually commented on how people were misusing it. I see no reason for me to copy over the Reception section here, and point to the various things said about the character from reliable sources. Those who read the article either agree that's significant coverage in reliable sources, thus it meets the general notability guidelines, or they argue that doesn't count because the coverage is only about their appearance in one video game, which is not a valid reason to delete it. Nowhere is their any rule something has to be covered for multiple things. Dream Focus 21:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  So you're issue is that you regard there isn't enough to preserve, but it should be preserved all the same? That's...some weird logic...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That isn't what I said. Not sure where you got that from. There is enough to preserve in this article, it too much to fit in the other article. Dream Focus 21:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Merges don't require all 100% all information to be integrated, and you know that, so I don't know where you're going with this. This is not some complex scenario. It would be very easy to merge some of this video game character's article into its respective video game. It's a personal trainer who got put into a crossover fighting game. Pretty straightforward. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, THREE is an essay, but it's certainly telling that, after multiple requests, (that you've clearly shown that you've seen) haven't provide any examples of good sources providing significant coverage. That's not exactly how experienced editors act when they've got good sources that prove notability. Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Divided between those arguing to Keep this article and those advocating a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge to Wii Fit. I feel a majority of the voters above aren't providing very insightful rationale. However, this character, outside of Smash Bros, isn't notable and personally I don't see the impact this character would have regardless of its inclusion in Smash Bros. So, I suggest that it would be better off with a redirect to the main game with a section for the Smash Bros stuff. A redirect on the List can go to this section too. Conyo14 (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge some info to Wii Fit - Although some stuff in this article, such as her conception as an SSB character and popularity as a character among women, is absolutely worthy of coverage, it could easily be made into one to three paragraphs in the Legacy section of the Wii Fit article, and it would arguably work better there rather than being supported by a scaffold of trivia and fluff. ― novov t c 08:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. There's just not as much there as there could be, unfortunately. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balotra News

Balotra News (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)

"Balotra News" lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, making it not notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Further, It Fails

Saurabh^{Talk} 16:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, India, and Rajasthan. Saurabh^{Talk} 16:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Balotra News" is a notable and relevant topic, it should have a Wikipedia page. Notability can be established if there are reliable sources and references to support its significance. Deleting such a page would deprive readers of valuable information. Moxrathorebalotra (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Material online appears to be largely promotional/non-independent in nature. The sources in the article are insufficient, and I can't see coverage elsewhere that would indicate notability by
  WP:GNG or any other standard. Also not finding references to stories picked up from Balotra in larger, reliable Indian news soures. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Deleting the Wikipedia page of Balotra News would deprive people of access to information about this important news source in their own language. Not everyone is fluent in English, and the Wikipedia page for Balotra News is available in several other languages, including Hindi, Urdu, and Gujarati. Deleting the English page would make it more difficult for people who do not speak English to access information about this news outlet. Roxblt (talk) 17:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC) — Roxblt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. The AFD tag has been removed from this article several times so that's something to keep an eye on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia page for Balotra News is well-written and informative. It provides a comprehensive overview of the news outlet, its history, and its current activities. Deleting it would be a loss of valuable information. Moxrathorebalotra (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails
  WP:ORG. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 ^{𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜} 07:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was no consensus‎. There is not a particular consensus as to whether this article should exist in its current form, but there is similarly no consensus to remove it. Several editors have suggested renaming the article to broaden its scope, but this is a discussion which can take place outside AfD. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Michalis Katsouris

Murder of Michalis Katsouris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Football, Croatia, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Michalis Katsouris is not a notable individual (
  WP:SENSATIONAL. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Rename and refactor – I am striking my previous !vote to concur with expanding the article's scope to cover the riot as a whole rather than focusing on the murder of a single non-notable individual. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder if it would be better placed under a different title. The riot itself was certainly front page news for days. SportingFlyer T·C 09:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Comments Nominator is too focused on the title and not the whole picture, the title of the article and a redirect of the current title needs to be addressed. The basis of the article is okay, but in essence the focus has been taken away from the hooligan event to which the murder happened. This is an imbedded event inside an already greater event in Greek football history. I suggest that this will need to be partially rewritten and examined. I don't think a TNT is in order. A title rename to something like August 2023 Nea Filadelfeia hooligan riots and expand into that. Regards. Govvy (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put this up for deletion precisely because I could not determine its notability owing to the writing and the bizarre sourcing. I would be thrilled if cleanup resulted in an article that was kept, but the article as written looked very nearly like a bizarre political screed to this poor, uninitiated reader of articles about soccer riots. jps (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you call the sourcing bizarre? It incorporates articles from basically every major Croatian news outlet. SportingFlyer T·C 13:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some text did not align with the sources. jps (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clearly significant coverage that passes GNG. Should be cleaned up not deleted.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to broaden the scope to the riots. Like most murders, this one is not notable, but the riots might be. We should also wipe most of the "reactions" section, which as usual has attracted an indiscriminate collection of statements. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Soccer riots, even those where people get killed, are unfortunately nothing out of the ordinary. And as this only happened a few weeks ago, there's no way of knowing whether there will be sustained coverage my hunch is "no"). Also,
  WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Plenković talked about it at his press conference just this week, so the coverage is already starting to be sustained. SportingFlyer T·C 13:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Randykitty: For starters, you're completely wrong, we do record most riots on wikipedia. Just take this template as an example.

• And that is just a collection of the riots in England. What you call NOTNEWS and not sustained coverage is completely wrong. Because if you analyse the events we will see there is sustained coverage and it's still on going. These riots have in fact result in the Greek people persecuting Croatians further from the event, but related too. Govvy (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgive me for not being impressed with 3 weeks of coverage, that's not really what "sustained" means. And your template more or less makes my point by listing notable riots, but few (or even none) soccer-related riots. --Randykitty (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Clearly notabl topic with ramifications. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above - article needing re-writing/re-naming is not an issue. GiantSnowman 16:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – questionable encyclopedical notability. But even if meeting standards for notability, language isn't unbiased and the article is written tendentiously. Motifs are still unclear and some information are media speculations.--Mudroslov (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Elements like renaming or editorial improvements can happen if it is decided to Keep this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it would be nice if one of the people who commented here would show us what an article that focused on the riot would look like in comparison to this current piece. I tried to write one myself, but found a lot of the sources were difficult to use in light of
  WP:NPOV test in my mind, but if that's what these things are called, that's what they're called). jps (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep, per all the sources that this article has makes this very infamous. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:
  WP:LASTING impact.  // Timothy :: talk  23:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - with all the sourcing this article has of different sources of course it should be kept ((User: Suncheon Boy]] 8:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suncheon Boy (talk • contribs) — Suncheon Boy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• keep - and why not, this article has 38 good sources and that is surely keep worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.183.250 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The Explosive

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

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United Kingdom, and England. UtherSRG (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect‎ to Viva Records (Philippines). as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasia (musical group)

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

)

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Philippines. UtherSRG (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably a redirect to Viva Records? To be honest, I haven't heard of this group in the Philippines, so they're probably one performing group that never quite made it big, but were signed by a major recording label nevertheless. --- Tito Pao (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for this Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find sources in GNews and GNews Archives. Note that there are several false positives due to Eurasia being a common keyword. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Lenticel's comments. The article history shows that this article has very few edits from 2010 to 2023 too. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:ATD. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]