Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 4

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 Lyoness. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LYCONET

LYCONET (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 notability with reliable sources being primarily about Lyoness. Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MyWorld. IgelRM (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Austria. IgelRM (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keep per presented sufficient newspaper coverage and general notability presented as a significant cashback entity, possibly one of the first global ones (operating since 2003).--Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, but how is it different from Lyoness? IgelRM (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  HighKing⁺⁺ 13:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carey Schueler

Carey Schueler (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's only claim to fame is that she was the first woman

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 20:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Baseball, Basketball, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Besides the fact that it feels wrong to relegate a woman who broke through in a male dominated field to a mention in her male relative's article (in an encyclopedia which already has a gender gap issue), her drafting was very significant, lead to a rule change and also, notably not a publicity stunt but based on a genuine assessment of her talent. She is well covered in literature on the subject (1). The article could certainly use expansion (I'd like to find information on her performance in her senior year season, for instance), but that by itself is not reason to delete it any more than any other stub article. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How you "feel" is not a legit reason to keep an article. I am sure many other editors' personal point of views conflict with the rules here, but they can do nothing about it. Most of those books in that Google search only mention her for a single sentence or paragraph. That is certainly not "well covered." The Legendary Ranger (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first word in my comment is that besides the fact that it feels wrong. I'm also not talking about my personal feelings here, but commenting on how doing things like redirecting a woman's page to her male relative's only enforces systematic gender bias on wikipedia. Many of the books contain only a paragraph mention, but several of them do contain more coverage than that. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with
  WP:BLP1E. While being the first female drafted in MLB is a big deal, the subject did not sign with, let alone play for, any professional baseball organization. Outside of that, she had a rather unremarkable college basketball career. This person is clearly defined by a single event. She can adequately be covered at the proposed target article, even if information about her high school baseball career is added as suggested by Wasianpower. Frank Anchor 22:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per
  Walsh90210 (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I strongly oppose Ron Schueler as a target. Casey Schueler is most notable for being the first woman drafted by MLB, not for being Ron’s daughter. Frank Anchor 00:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with this. 🌸wasianpower🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for two reasons: First, there is a discrete entry about Carey Schueler in two different baseball encyclopedias: Donald Dewey, Nicholas Acocella, and Jerome Holtzman's The New Biographical History of Baseball: The Classic—Completely Revised (Triumph Books, 2002) and Leslie A. Heaphy and Mel Anthony May's Encyclopedia of Women and Baseball (
  WP:ANYBIO is has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field, and Schueler precipitated the MLB to change a rule about signing contracts for women), an enduring contribution to baseball. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 07:36, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, passes
  WP:GNG: see Oakland Tribune feature story (more Tribune coverage), San Francisco Examiner (2), Sunday News, and Orlando Sentinel, as well as the coverage mentioned by Hydrangeans. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: At least passes general notability with the sources given in the comment above; gender bias here in Wiki is a thing also, there is no point redirecting to her father's article. Publicity stunt or not, the drafting got her attention in the press, so it's enough for wiki notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2024 (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 Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cầu Diễn station

Cầu Diễn station (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)

Zero sources to meet the

Please redirect this to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro). Toadspike [Talk] 15:17, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Vietnam. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the position data, etc. to Line 3 (Hanoi Metro) and redirect there if sources cannot be found (they're most likely to be in Vietnamese, so do check in that language). There is no reason to delete the information present in the article which will be useful if it is expanded in future. Thryduulf (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge there isn't enough coverage (or content) for a separate article from
  Walsh90210 (talk) 23:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I added some references from the corresponding article in Vietnamese. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. All these metro station articles can be expanded (and their references improved) using the information already present in the corresponding articles in Vietnamese and other languages. Reviewing relevant articles in other languages is an important part of
  WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Per my talk page: I checked the Vietnamese Wikipedia articles for most of these nominations and their sourcing was no better. In this example, there is a map from Hanoi Metro [18], which isn't an independent source and has no information to boot, and this source [19], which doesn't mention the station at all.

  Source review on enwiki: Four sources never mention this station [20][21][22][23] (yes, I even watched the full 56-second video). There is also an article which lists the names of eight stations but says nothing more about this station [24].

  I

  BEFORE checks. Toadspike [Talk] 06:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I'll go further than Toadspike. You are completely out of line, Eastmain. You make a habit of dumping any source you find online and then saying keep without actually reading them, and have an idea of what constitutes significant coverage that is utterly out of line with community consensus. Your AfD match rate is below 60%, while Toadspike is at nearly 90%. If anyone needs to improve their behavior at AfD, it is you (I'm at 83%, if you're wondering). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Appears to have sufficient coverage to satisfy
  WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:HEY. Metro stations that have tens of thousands of riders annually are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I have to object to the claim that
    Walsh90210 (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  Train stations are not automatically notable per community consensus. Please stop repeating this debunked claim. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still divided between Keep and Merge/Redirect. Rather than close as No Consensus, I'm relisting once more.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per the clear failure of any of the supposed sources to actually demonstrate any substantial coverage of this station. The invocation of HEY is ridiculous as the article is still exactly one sentence, to the point that vote should be ignored. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:20, 8 June 2024 (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 Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. Thanks for identifying the specific Star Wars article that is the redirect target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juhani (Star Wars)

Juhani (Star Wars) (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)

Source analysis from reception: Of all sources that have been used, Gizmodo [25] is the only sigcov here. [26] Passing mention. [27] A trivia coverage from a listicle. [28] trivia coverage. [29] just a passing mention of Juhani being a lesbian character and can have lesbian relationship with trivia coverage [30] passing mention [31] listicle [32] just talked about her being created as a lesbian and the romance, a bit useful but this and Gizmodo isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. The rest of the sources that I didn't mention aren't reliable/situational and cannot help

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 10:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the character list. The reception consists of trivial mentions with no indication of standalone notability at all. Simply being a milestone for something is not enough to merit a page, unfortunately. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The character's milestone status does seem to have gotten her some attention from outside the normal fan-coverage sources, however. Whether it's sufficiently significant coverage, I'm a terrible judge. But see: Dym, Brianna (2019). "The burden of queer love". Press Start. 5 (1): 19–35. (pp. 24-26 in particular) and Shaw, Adrienne; Friesem, Elizaveta (2016). "Where is the queerness in games?: Types of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer content in digital games". International Journal of Communication. 10: 3877–3889. (admittedly, only one paragraph on p. 3883 but includes context and analysis outside the first game). Snippet view (and Google Scholar) suggest there might be some discussion of the character in chapter 8 of this Routledge-published book, but I don't have immediate access and my library doesn't have a copy handy. Lubal (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect There are only passing mentions of this in reliable sources. It isn't enough to pass the notability threshold. Jontesta (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, if suggesting a Merge or Redirect, you must supply a target article at the same time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The character's apparent status as the first LGBT SW character is certainly notable, and sources used in the article like
  Out.com [34], TheWrap [35] and Polygon [36] are reliable.— TAnthony^Talk 16:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak merge to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series. While I do understand there's *reaction* to her status as a LGBT character, that alone doesn't particularly feel as notable when there's not a lot of discussion about it to warrant observing her as a character. I feel that's a significant factor her we need to consider.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus. And, as I said, specify a target article, by linking to the desired page, do not say things like "merge to the character list". Name the specific article. The closer probably doesn't know Star Wars and you don't want them guessing where content should be merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge to Characters of the Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic series per Kung Fu Man and Shooterwalker. MKsLifeInANutshell (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2024 (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 Donkey Kong. I don't know if this IS the best Redirect target article but it seems to be the one most mentioned. Debate about a change can happen outside of this AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game)

View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

I am procedurally nominating this article for deletion, as it has been

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. (EDIT: See below) I'm trying to follow what's going on here. There's a video game (and its remake) with the same name as the series that it is part of. All of this is fairly well-attested. Currently, the non-disambiguated title is the article for the series, and the game(s) of the same name are at the "(video game)" article. At least one editor is unhappy with this arrangement and wants the main article to be the video game. There has been blanking and redirection attempted to enforce that desire, and so this has ended up here as a "procedural" nomination, despite no one having forwarded a reason why we should actually not have an article for a series with like 7 games in it. Did I miss something about how all this process is intended to work? Lubal (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You have to also make a case for why it should be kept. For example, an argument you could make is akin to the nominator's, that it's discussed in reliable sources, or that it would be given undue weight if redirected. I don't agree, but those would be arguments you can make. You can also make "per nominator" rationales for keeping, though when tallying results, weighing in with more may be beneficial to the article ultimately being kept. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand how AFD works, just not how this AFD works. What is the actual reason we're here? Even the nomination cites sources suggesting this is a valid topic. Additionally, this is a listicle but it's a list of entirely this series's games, bylined, and from a site with a stated editor and editorial policy. This book about platform games mostly talks about one specific game in the series, but does take time to deem it a "series" and list the then-included games. What is an argument for retention being asked to argue against here, exactly? Lubal (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The nominator opposed a redirect on procedural grounds, my understanding is that the nominator does not want the article deleted and believes that because two users want it to be merged, it should go through AfD. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  WP:BLAR being reserved solely for uncontroversial topics. I believed it deserved a full deletion discussion so that others outside said narrow, stringent group had a chance to gauge its notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  To be entirely clear, it was extremely clearly uncontroversial. There had hardly been any major edits to the article for several years, there was nothing in the article suggesting individual notability. The only reason it could be said to be controversial is because you opposed it, an opposition that did not exist until after the move. BLAR was perfectly appropriate in this case. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What was the controversy? I don't see any opposition on the talk page or in the recent page history. Sergecross73 msg me 03:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I've spent way too long reading through the sources and discussion here. What's almost certainly going to happen is: 1) move this article to
  Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game) to Mario vs. Donkey Kong over the move-created redirect. That said, I would have structured all of this differently from first principles. Sources are split about whether some of these games (especially the Donkey Kong Country games, but to a lesser extent these as well) represent their own independent series or are merely facets of a larger gorilla gestalt. From an outside observer, it's not immediately clear why a Lemmings-inspired game where you play as Mario is in the same series with a game where you play a rhino-riding monkey, and not all sources treat them as if they are. But some do, and editorially, that's where this went. The result, at least for now, is fine; what we have at AFD right now is effectively a content fork. But while I've come around to endorsing the current structure, I'd also urge those working in this area to be open to the idea that, if content continues to release for this sub-series or whatever you want to call it (or especially if some miracle revives Donkey Kong Country) that it may become reasonable and prudent to treat them somewhat more separately. And with that, this is off my watchlist. Lubal (talk) 13:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Redirect. The BLAR was entirely valid, and this is definitely an AfD done for bureaucratic purposes. I also find the argument of reliable sources highly questionable considering the nominator cited an article that discusses Mario vs. Donkey Kong as part of the overall Donkey Kong series, which I would argue makes the case for redirecting, not keeping. The fact that the Mario vs. Donkey Kong series is itself, with only one exception, sequels to Donkey Kong for Game Boy and not its own unique thing like Paper Mario or what have you is also very telling to me of how independent it is from Donkey Kong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A valid opposition to a BLAR, which is what we have here, means this is a valid AfD discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ was correct to start this disscussion. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  02:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not disputing the validity of the opposition, I'm arguing that the BLAR was valid and the argument for why it was controversial is not there. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  Mario vs. Donkey Kong (video game), where the nominator had several established editors not only agreeing with the decision but with the assessment that the sources found by Zx only helped to re-affirm the BLAR was the right move. While I assume good faith on the nominator's part, that should have been taken into account, especially as the individual that did the original BLAR has been actively working to improve articles related to this subject on wikipedia.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per others. This discussion shouldn't even exist, there is one already ongoing where many agree with the BLAR, including me. Even if this series was notable, I believe that it's better off as part of something else as it is uninformative and not necessary as a standalone article. We don't need a useless split off. λ NegativeMP1 02:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  With all due respect a move discussion is not how you discuss deleting articles. It's something you do after the discussion is over and the pages have to be organized, rather than a backdoor deletion venue. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a misstatement of the sequence of events. The article was redirected to Donkey Kong, and then a move discussion due to the redirect. The point being made is that the discussion had several editors making clear that they viewed the series article as not being independently notable from Donkey Kong. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - series articles aren't necessary when there's little to no content actually about the concept as a series. The article largely just sloppily regurgitates basic outline info from each individual article. We've got the individual articles for that sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 02:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect No significant coverage of the series outside of the context of the Donkey Kong franchise itself, given that the games are considered spiritual successors to the DK series. --Masem (t) 12:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I understand the nom's procedural BLAR here. Unfortunately, with the discussion ongoing, I feel this should not have come to AfD until a true outcome was available. Here it just feels like the redirect should have happened regardless. Under normal circumstances, it still would have been a redirect from me. Conyo14 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  Donkey Kong Country, a subseries with a far greater claim to notability than Mario vs. Donkey Kong, doesn't need to have an independent article. JOEBRO⁶⁴ 19:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it's not clear to me what the possible redirect target article is agreed upon here as several different "Donkey Kong" or "Mario" articles are mentioned in editors' opinions. There is agreement on the outcome of having this article Redirected, I just wish it was clearer what it was to be Redirected to. Once that is clear to a closer, this discussion can be closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is to redirect to Donkey Kong. I don't see other Mario articles proposed here as redirect targets. --Mika1h (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:ATD-R, and the series already has a sub-section in the Mario (franchise) article which is good enough. MK at your service. 05:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Redirect to Mario vs. Donkey Kong, shouldn't the series be redirected to the first game of the series since Donkey Kong doesn't have a section for Mario vs. Donkey Kong. NatwonTSG2 (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussed in #2002–2010: After Rare (third paragraph). Lubal (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2024 (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. Nominators should offer deletion rationales that demonstrates a proper BEFORE has been done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoro (tribe)

Shoro (tribe) (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)

Do we really need a standalone WP article on each and every tribe that exists on this planet? Fails WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 00:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major tribe of the

Arghun Dynasty of Sindh. It is clearly relevant, at least for historical reasons. Sir Calculus (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

As I mentioned on your talk page, I do agree that this would have needed a broader preliminary discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has adequate references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, I wouldn't have nominated this for deletion. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadette^Edit! 00:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination any cited source does not show their notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:3100:1895:5625:1:0:DCDE:F606 (talk • contribs)
• Comment - not the worst I've seen. 16:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you believe this article should be kept, please name the sources you believe establish GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Added 1 more reference to the article and updated all 4 references. This article now has references from the
  WP:GNG...Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2024 (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. Star Mississippi 01:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bronwyn Labrum

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

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, History, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 19:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep just barely. The Stuff profile and Wanganui Chronicle article establish some notability. I'm not sure if
  WP:AUTHOR is the only criteria that applies here, as she has been a curator and researcher at multiple museums and universities, most notably Te Papa which is the New Zealand national museum. To me, this establishes notability as an academic. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  How does she meet

  WP:NACADEMIC? LibStar (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Likely passes AUTHOR as "Ockham New Zealand Book Awards finalist in 2016" per [37] and some book reviews here [38] and [39]. Appears to be a published academic author as well. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: She also edited this rather comprehensive volume on clothing in NZ [40] Oaktree b (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2024 (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.

Freya Jayawardana

Freya Jayawardana (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 subject doesn't meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Women, Dance, Internet, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She may not be as famous like a Hollywood celebrity. However, she is one of the notable members of JKT48. WJetChao (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: coverage (IDN Media, Kompas) seems to show she's notable enough. A redirect to the list the nominator mentioned may also be considered indeed. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The discussion published by the media is only non-trivial and not related to what is being discussed in the article. Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 07:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Only non-trivial? WC gudang inspirasi (^{Read! Talk!}) 14:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of JKT48 members. Most, if not all, sources in the article refer to her status as a member of JKT48. Ckfasdf (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources are on her specifically and not JKT48 in general. WC gudang inspirasi (^{Read! Talk!}) 15:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starwing Paradox

Starwing Paradox (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)

Digging around on this, there's nothing online that I could find but announcements of the game's development and content (mostly press release regurgiation), with zero reaction, review or critical response. The most notable aspect was a tournament being cancelled, but that was due to Yoshiyuki Sadamoto being tied to the game as a character designer and not the game itself. Game required a server connection that's since been shut down, with little commentary about that either.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, leaning keep: Does someone know the Japanese sources? I imagine that they'd be the most relevant for determining notability of an only-in-Japan game. In general, JP media tends to be more "fannish" than American video game outlets (lots of open regurgitation of the plot & characters), but I'm seeing some coverage. Famitsu has an overview here (yes, with lots of fannish "here are all the characters" rather than commentary, but see above, it's a Japanese game and it's going to get JP media standards), including links to 6 interviews with the voice actors, staff, and singers. Of which the staff ones are probably the "most" relevant (e.g. [41], [42]). Even if the game flopped, flops are interesting too. I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to a case of borderline notability if this was a Sunrise collaboration, Sunrise is a big deal. SnowFire (talk) 21:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @SnowFire: The problem isn't that it was a flop, it's that there was no reaction to the game itself. We still need at least some sort of reception here, even for an arcade game, for the purposes of notability. Even Japanese sources didn't indicate that from what I dug through, just famitsu's interviews and the usual "this is what's in this update!" sort of PR articles.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does exist media that is only questionably notable as media (i.e. a game / book / film / etc.) but are notable anyway under GNG. Comes up with canceled games most obviously, which never get reviews but might have eaten up a bunch of time / money at a studio. The whole "tournament canceled" thing seems similar - obviously not relevant as a game, but sourced and covered overall on the topic-as-a-whole.
  • I do agree that the coverage is not very substantial by English-media standards, but it does look like there is at least some coverage. This Famitsu first-look report talks about the game-as-a-game. And I know you've already mentioned it, but there are trivial-ish "Here's what's in this update!" stories floating around, a la the 5 related articles at the end of [43] - all dealing with the work, just in "Hey you can buy this" or "there's a new mode now" form.
  • And to be clear, yeah, I'm not saying that the delete argument is that it was a flop, but the fact it doesn't appear to have done too well is surely the cause for why it's a bit difficult to find sourcing. Don't get me wrong, this is a very borderline notability game, but when the sources are largely not in English but clearly existent, I'd be inclined to kneejerk on the side of keep. SnowFire (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. In addition to the current sources (of which Siliconera is probably the highest quality site), there's initial announcement reporting from Anime Herald. I'm not familiar with them, but they have a reasonably large set of staff editors? But perhaps more to the point, this was primarily a Japanese release, and so we should be looking for Japanese reportage. Forcing Google to give me what it thinks are Japanese news articles relevant to "星と翼のパラドクス"... reminds me that I do not speak or read Japanese even enough to pretend. But I don't think there has to be very much more there than we're already seeing to drag this over the line. Lubal (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lubal: I mean generally we wait til sources are *found* first instead of assuming, that's kinda the problem. Also the Siliconera and Anime Herald sources aren't giving reception; the only one that is at all is the one Famitsu source Snow found, and that's not enough for an article...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I quite read our notability guidelines to imply that only sources giving explicit reception of the game would contribute to notability. But that aside, I have tried to bumble through the Japanese sources with the help of Google Translate. As a disclaimer, it's going to be exceptionally hard for me to judge the reliability of some of these sources due to the language barrier. This, from ASCII Games seems particularly promising. It's a bylined full-length article about the initial demo reveal of the game, including review elements and details like the arcade game per-play cost that are absent from our current coverage; the site has some sort of editorial review policy but I cannot speak to its overall source quality. This is the online footprint of what appears to be a print magazine with what looks like a two-page spread about the game, although the way this is presented, I can't actually translate the pages themselves. This is a full length interview with the game's creators; I'm aware that there's some contention about to what extent, if any, interviews contribute to crossing inclusion thresholds. I'm confident there are more, as my capacity to search for, read, and evaluate this material is very poor. Lubal (talk) 20:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep per above and Lubal's sources. There's some sources to work with here. I'm not a huge fan of using previews for Reception, but I think it's better than nothing since the preview version of the game sounds pretty close to the released version. And per above, it really would not surprise me if there exists better sources buried in Japan-only magazines and the like that are difficult to find due to releasing long after the heyday of Japanese arcades and just a year before COVID would wreck the remnants of the arcade market. SnowFire (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow I'll be honest, I really don't like the approach of
  WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST simply because it's Japan. There's been plenty of times that's been disappointing. I'm not going to fight on it but it's just not a particular route I'm fond of given the track record is all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though no support for deletion has arrived, both !votes say weak keep and the other commenter is only leaning keep. More discussion could help. Even if the article survives AfD, though, it will clearly need improvement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla: To clarify, the commenter "leaning" keep is the same as the second editor !voting weak keep (i.e. me), so there are two other editors chiming in, not three. Also, the article was improved if you check the history and one of the sources included, meaning that there is a Reception section now (when the AFD nomination was written there wasn't one). And while it was a "weak" keep, it's not that weak, to be clear. If I truly had no opinion I wouldn't have !voted, the "weak" part is simply acknowledging that the topic is borderline. SnowFire (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2024 (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.

Out of Afrika

Out of Afrika (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 extensive third-party coverage to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Kenya, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig_Considine_(academic)

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

)

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

I am unconvinced that the subject of this article meets the notability guidelines for academics. The article subject is a teaching professor with limited research output. Their research has not made a significant impact in their scholarly field (they seem to publish introductions for popular presses, published reviews of their other work is critical). They have not recieved a highly prestigious academic award or honor at national/internationl level. They are not an elected member of a highly selective/prestigious society. The subject does not hold a distinguished professor position or appointment at a major institution, nor have they been named chair or equivalent. The subject has not held a highest-level administrative appointment. The person appears not to have made a signifcant impact outside of academia in their academic capacity, where they are quoted in publications it is usually promotional material for one of their porjects. The subject has not been editor/EiC of a major/well-established academic journal. Other contextual clues indicate that this page exists purely as a promotional platform for the subject. There is very little activity on this page other than IP editors vandalizing the page to introduce promotional content, and then other editors removing or clarifying these edits. The creator of this page has since been banned for their promotional activities. I mean to disrespect to the subject of this article, but I struggle to see how they meet the criteria or need for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with trying to boost your platform and visibility as a junior academic, but I would suggest that this is much better accomplished through a personal website and social media channels. Having a cursory glance at the department the article subject belongs to, there are many far more senior scholars among his colleagues who are not similarly represented on this site. After spending significant time trying to improve this page, I doubt that with the available material it will rise to the level of inclusion. I welcome other editors' feedback and perspectives if I have been too harsh in my judgement. Boredintheevening (talk) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(correcting typo: line read "I mean no disrespect", not "I mean to disrespect") Boredintheevening (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Christianity, Islam, Ireland, England, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep but trim. A lecturer position at a US university is unpromising for
  WP:AUTHOR as the only plausible remaining possibility. The article (in the version I checked) lists reviews in the Wall Street Journal and an academic journal, Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations, for his book People of the Book (references 11 and 12) and in Anthropology Today for his film Journey into America (reference 23). It lists a few other reviews but I am not as convinced of their reliability. My searches turned up only one more, a review in Diaspora Studies for his book Islam, race and pluralism in the Pakistani Diaspora [45]. I think that's borderline, but on the positive side of borderline. On the other hand, the article was horribly puffed up with uninteresting childhood anecdotes, unsourced claims, and the like, even after User:Boredintheevening had trimmed a lot of it. I trimmed more, but there appears to be plenty of unreliably-sourced material remaining in the "Documentary and Books" that should be cut back even more heavily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Thank you for contributing to this discussion and for editing out some of the puff from the article. I want to defer to your experience, but reading WP:AUTHOR - the subject certainly doesn't meet bullet points 1, 2 and 4. For bullet point 3, I acknowledge there are a handful of reviews (fewer when amateur sources and promotional material is excluded) but it seems like not a huge amount to hang the existence of the article on. I'm trying to resist being overly zealous, but the whole thing strikes me as a subject that's been very committed to self promotion (especially re:COI edits on the article) and hasn't really received much recognition or attention from professional bodies and peers. Boredintheevening (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm kinda in the same boat as the nominator. In that, while I'm less familiar with
  WP:NAUTHOR. Personally I cannot advocate for a keep. And am left on the fence. (I would note that the bulk of the promotion added to previous versions of this article didn't appear to come from the article's creator. But from an apparent COI/SPA account which added the bulk of the largely uncited puff
  in Aug 2021.)
• Keep. Satisfies criterion 7 of
  deletion is not cleanup. Dclemens1971 (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  P.S. I want to thank @Boredintheevening for your work improving the article in the face of a wave of disruptive COI edits. The article was very problematic before you turned your attention to it, and while it still needs work it's in much better shape. Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion shows a pass of
  WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2024 (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!} 21:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian writer

Slovenian writer (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)

It is obvious writers from one specific country may write in any language other than their national one. This article has no purpose of existing nor potential for expansion. Super Ψ Dro 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Literature, and Slovenia. Super Ψ Dro 21:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have categories for such things, no need for a microstubby list with three entries and actually no entry primarily connected with the topic itself. A09|(talk) 07:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pointless
  WP:DICDEF. Geschichte (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2024 (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.

Cribl

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

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

Doesn't seem like it actually meets NORG. Coverage is all your typical SERIESA stuff. History is also a little suspicious TBH but that's mostly secondary to the routineness of coverage. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - In a whopping three months of editing (just acknowledging that I'm a newer editor, so take this opinion for what it's worth), I've already seen enough of similar type marketing articles roll through suggested edits. I believe almost all of the coverage listed belongs to the category of trivial
  WP:FORBESCON, and I've seen other editors describe these kinds of pages as "cruft." That said, the weakness in my comment relates to Bloomberg Law article about a lawsuit it lost and won (only had to pay $1). I don't believe that raises it to notable, but it's something and makes me a little hesitant...so weak delete it is! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MertenMerten (talk • contribs) 02:23, 11 June 2024 (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 Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (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)

Continuing the assault on the Anglo-Australian cricket fanfict. Full of cruft. Duplicated infoboxes. Similar articles have been deleted before, and a large amount are currently almost deleted here (deleted on 11 June 2024). Before voting for merge, remember a lot of these articles is already on the main biography ones. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bill Brown with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ian Johnson with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bill Johnston with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arthur Morris with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ricky Ponting with the Australian cricket team in India in 2008–09 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mitchell Johnson with the Australian cricket team in the 2013–14 Ashes series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Removed redirects

Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment Maybe should have taken a little more time--many of the above are redirects which should go to
  WP:RFD instead. --Finngall ^talk 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Since its a lot of similar articles, I will wait till they are deleted (if consensus is reached) and then list them there Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I'll repeat what I said at the Neil Harvey (in this tour) AfD, that holds true for each article here: "We have an article about every international match played on this tour; we have an article about the series; one about the Australian team playing the series; and one about the player. Any information that doesn't already belong in those three articles is, IMHO, too much detail to be covered in an encyclopedia: it is also essentially prosified statistics that we're not a database [...] While these articles are clearly a labor of love, at some point we need to recognize that not every incident in a month-long cricket tour is worth incorporating into Wikipedia. It may be the most famous example of an Ashes series, but there's been one approximately every two years for over a century, and it's hard to argue that similar articles could not be written about every player in the more recent ones, relying on online news coverage. Not every verifiable detail is encyclopedic. I'm inclined to believe the international matches, and the tour itself, deserve articles, but it's hard to justify coverage beyond that." Aside: I suggest purging the redirects from the list now, as there will most certainly be procedural back-and-forth that will muddy the waters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will get to it but I feel that if this discussion goes through theres also no need for the redirects. They are dead weight. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Australian cricket team in England in 1948 - There is no doubt that the quality of writing in these articles is good and someone (or a few someones) spent a great deal of time. However, the amount of duplicated info across this series of articles is staggering. How everyone in the peer review process failed to come to the obvious conclusion that this is an unnecessary content fork truly boggles my mind. – PeeJay 10:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously the Ricky Ponting and Mitchell Johnson articles should be merged to their respective tour articles (I missed them at the bottom of the list). – PeeJay 10:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of content is already in the main articles. Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't doubt it. My !vote is a call for any relevant content not already in the main articles to be moved there, and then for these articles to be deleted. – PeeJay 13:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You specified merge all and didnt mention delete. Also for the peer reviews, they were reviewed in the 2000s. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't merge AND delete, see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Christian75 (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment 2 - the Keith Miller 1948 article is a featured article and a merge proposal less than two months ago reached a consensus to merge to the main article which has yet to be actioned. A merge discussion regarding the Ricky Ponting 2008 article was started in March 2024 and remains open. JP (Talk) 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all. Well written fancruft. Desertarun (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all 5225_C (talk • contributions) 09:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all, and I feel the 1948 series matches should also be examined for excessive detail/overlap and possible merging: not only is there an article for the overall tour and a separate one for the 1948 Ashes series (so, much of the detail in the tour article about the Ashes matches could be trimmed) but at present, as mentioned above, there are 5 separate articles for each of the 5 test matches. For context, there are only 11 articles in the Category:Test cricket matches, so over the entire history of test cricket, only 6 matches outside this tour have been deemed of sufficient interest for a Wikipedia article. Or to put it another way, the creators of the 1948 stuff were given far too much free rein over their favourite subject; while the 'Players with' articles are possibly a unique level of excess site-wide, certainly in terms of a fairly brief sporting event, I think the match articles are worthy of nomination too. Standards are different today, but it doesn't say much for the FA / GA process back in the 2000s when so many of these sailed through the reviews based on the high quality of the writing and formatting without the brakes being applied and saying 'wait a minute, X Y and Z player on tour nominations share a lot with X Y and Z player biography nominations and A, B and C test match nominations, which are also covered in depth by G series and H tour articles', it's not like these are totally niche and barely got any eyes on them. The main page of 2009/2010 must have had an article from this topic almost literally once a week. Some of them even got nominated for deletion at that same time, but amazingly the decision (probably involving editors who are still active in positions of respected seniority 15 years later, hopefully not with the same views on what is an appropriate level of coverage) was that they should not only be kept but promoted, basically in multiple instances of virtually the same information. Crowsus (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom and above. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all as per nom. Also fine with just redirecting and someone can do the merge later, if that would be preferred to just leaving merge tags on these for ages. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2024 (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. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Kuria

Douglas Kuria (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 Kenyan businessman. None of the coverage is

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kenya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page meets

WP:INHERITED criteria by Family Tree. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 08:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

The whole point of

WP:INHERITED is that notability is not inherited from notable family members. It must be independently proven by significant coverage in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I read there that "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects." I am trying to understand what this can do with Douglas Kuria. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That statement is on a page labeled "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions." The full section is about why the idea you quoted is incorrect. All of the coverage that mentions Kuria is really about his companies or his father, and he cannot inherit their notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. Is moving the page into draft space and re-writing it again allowed at this stage? 12eeWikiUser (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be unilaterally moved by a new page reviewer once this much time has passed since creation, but you can formally request it by typing "draftify" in bold. I will agree to that alternative as well. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. 12eeWikiUser (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as nominator. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2024 (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!} 21:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Sauthoff

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

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

The article contains no notability claim under

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Negligible impact yet on scholarly community. A misguided creation of this BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. An assistant professor with one book. I did not find any reviews of it. For this sort of field we are going to need multiple reviews of multiple books for
  WP:AUTHOR notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, History, Hong Kong, Bihar, Canada, Colorado, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- per
  WP:TOOSOON -- on the right track, but Xxanthippe and David Eppstein assessed the current notability properly. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - ditto to comments by Xxanthippe, David Eppstein, and Mscuthbert. --Rosiestep (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2024 (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.

Andh Bhakt

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

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

Lack of Notability . च҉न҉्҉द҉्҉र҉ ҉व҉र҉्҉ध҉न҉ Message 20:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and India. Shellwood (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see significant coverage. There can be "blind followers" of just anybody. Implying anything like "only Narendra Modi has blind followers" is an absurd POV. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Also nominated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adarsh Liberal (3rd nomination). Ratnahastin (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andh bhakt is a word getting very popular nowadays. Lot of People know about it and some don't . Wikipedia is a online encyclopedia where people know information about lots for matter. And the popular trending matter should be in Wikipedia . Therealbey (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2024 (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.

Barron Trump (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)

Opening this discussion to coalesce discussions of redirecting this article back to its previous target. This is not an implicit support for redirection or deletion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and salt. This is a private person who receives coverage only because various media cover his father extremely heavily. That doesn't make this person notable. Are any of these sources sigcov in RS, or are all RS mentions basically snippets in articles about his father or mother? Valereee (talk) 19:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — Trump appears to meet
  WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a guideline. Trump's association with his father is not the only reason that this article exists. The question remains on whether or not Trump has a claim of significance. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  He was mentioned as late as last month as a potential political candidate, that's more than enough sustained coverage from the time Trump was in office til now to suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think claims of significance are only for CSD A7. I think any coverage in reliable sources meets the CCS / A7 threshold. So this AFD should probably focus on notability, not CCS. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources 16, 19, 33, 34, 35 are directly about him. He's the president's son, so will get coverage. GNG is easily met. Oaktree b (talk) 19:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• To answer
  they|xe) 20:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore redirect Just because they aged out of
  WP:MINOR does not award them an article when they age out, and for now they don't warrant anything regarding outside gossip blogs for an article. Nate • (chatter) 20:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Speedy keep per

WP:SK#6, with absolutely no prejudice against renomination when this is off the main page.--Launchballer 20:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I've requested at

they|xe) 20:13, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Now off the main page.--Launchballer 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've worked my way through the DYK history, and it was proposed by ElijahPepe. Particulary odd, as this was something that happened at age 11. Barron was not kept on for any successive later age teams. A young child who failed promotion. Failure is not something usually promoted at DYK.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK's main focus is getting as many things as thry can onto the main page. Everything else is secondary. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on this one. JoeK2033 (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect. An interesting case. We certainly have articles on people with much less press coverage, and he appears to tick many of the GNG boxes. However, he also ticks many of the
  WP:LOWPROFILE boxes, and it's pretty obvious that the press coverage he's received is derived from his father's notability. There is a privacy interest here. It looks like the article was rebuilt with this edit which gave as part of the rationale the announcement this morning that he will be an at-large delegate - but it looks like he declined that opportunity shortly after so not a lot has changed. What we have are a collection of gossipy bio-snippets - reliably sourced, but a poor foundation for notability, and really not that interesting as an encyclopedia article. I don't see any benefit to having this as a standalone article when all the relevant information can have a perfectly good home at Family_of_Donald_Trump#Third_marriage. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore redirect Other than them no longer being a child, what makes this article notable as a standalone when this information better sits in the Family of DJT article? I certainly don't see it. Turini2 (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect This is an unusual case of inherited notability, but not a particularly strange one to me. Barron has received all the press he has received because of his father. No one would be commenting on him at all otherwise; we don't have many articles on random rich children of politicians, and we intrinsically seem to understand with the example of the Obamas that proximity to news coverage, and the fact that news orgs would talk about them, wasn't enough reason to create pages that, especially in this case, are a trainwreck and should never have gotten on the front page. There's no way to make a good article out of this, because there aren't good sources to start with. (Seriously, this article decided a story called "Barron Trump, 10, looked extremely sleepy during his father’s victory speech" was worth including?) It's essentially akin to a
  BLP1E subject. Also, speedy keeps because it makes Wikipedia look bad (due to our own stupidity) has and always will be a terrible reason to keep articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore redirect per
  WP:SK#6 due to clear emerging consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, there are plenty of sources that analyze the subject independent of (and budding independence from) his father, and due to Trump being married so often, redirecting to family is not as easy an option as it seems to have been with Obama's kids. Note also the 230k+ pageviews in the last 30 days. Abductive (reasoning) 20:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect (and SALT per others) fails WP:NOPAGE; the 'independent' sources are majoritively on adjacent issues. ——Serial Number 54129 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Independent" means "not under the control" of the subject. Also, a bio can't fail

WP:ANYBIO. Abductive (reasoning) 21:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

A biography can't fail a guideline regarding biographies? Thats an... interesting interpretation of otherwise plain English. Please read before you shovel; it's a pretty basic requirement per BLP. ——Serial Number 54129 21:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO is inclusive, it says topics that pass it are guaranteed to be notable. You seem to be allowing your biases to do your thinking. Abductive (reasoning) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

But

WP:ANYBIO doesn't say that. The introduction to the criteria says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Schazjmd (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

When clicked on,

WP:ANYBIO leads to the list of three points, which are clearly purely inclusive. The quote about applies to that list and "Academics" and "Creative professionals". So, debatable. But i doubt many editors use the fact that a person has not "received a well-known and significant award" to argue for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 22:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Did you mean "fails

WP:SNG that lets very specific situations skip GNG and auto qualify, such as being a Medal of Honor recipient or being included in the Dictionary of National Biography. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:49, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Restore redirect and protect it. No independent notability. Also I note that the hiding of the AfD notice is an inappropriate restraint of discussion. If this discussion is urgent enough for BLP reasons—as I believe it is—to override the usual prohibition on AfDing an article currently on the Main Page, then the blurb should be pulled from DYK, as is usually done when it's discovered that the grounds for AfDing an article featured in one of the Main Page blocks are urgent enough not to wait. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• However did it get on the Main Page for 20 hours? And once on the Main Page, no banner should have been there. Abductive (reasoning) 22:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It was proposed by ElijahPepe, who faked Barron's membership at a professional soccer team by omitting pertinent information. Barron was never a professional player. He was 11. He played on the U-12 team in 2017. He was not promoted to the next age bracket. Failure is not something usually promoted at DYK.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, looking at the first two noms, we have a contortionist closing argument that somehow makes a distinction between the "particularly high status ... Prince George or Princess Charlotte of Cambridge" and Barron Trump, and then a shameful example of vote counting(!) by the second closing "admin". Abductive (reasoning) 22:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect. An article that should never have been created. Barron Trump has no independent notability whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating individual achievement with independent, significant coverage. We don't care about achievement — if you wanna go OTHERSTUFF, I'd argue there are a whole bunch of articles about British royals who haven't done jack other than have the right pedigree. What matters is coverage. Ask yourself this: is a random user likely to have a question about Barron Trump and to come to WP for an answer? Of course they are. They don't want to be redirected to a 40 page biography of Donald Trump. Carrite (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect and protect. Not protecting is how the article reached this state, the creator was advised against the article at least a couple times despite previous AFDs. Soni (talk) 00:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised after the article was created. Tamzin was the only one who raised such objections despite mentioning this article with other people and bringing it to GAN. One person's word is not going to force a redirect. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall another conversation much before Tamzins, but I might be mistaken here. Regardless, I don't agree with your last sentence because one person's word can undo a redirect apparently. And I do think that's a waste of community time if it requires an AFD or similar to restore it to redirect state each time. So, I'd still want protection.

No comment on GA/GAN and how you handle discussions with others, because I have opinions on them unrelated to this AFD. Articles with questionable notability can pass DYK, as this one proves (even if we decide to keep it) Soni (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: interesting. While there are BLP concerns, there are sources specifically about Barron, and IMO there is far too much info for a NOPAGE redirect. Cheers, Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 01:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is non-trivial coverage about him in multiple reliable sources and he is an adult. Bruxton (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect again. The coverage barely mentions him without the context of his father, even the sources linked above provide a weak claim. Mere speculation about his life doens't prove notability. Fails
  WP:NINHERITED - even with being nominated as a delegate (before declining), he was only notable for that because of his parentage, and I don't think being a delegate is a claim to notability in itself.. Mdann52 (talk) 05:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep He is already an adult, and the article can be improved so it pays more attention to him as a person.--Janitoalevic (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Much of the BLP violations and fluff has already been removed, and there are sources specifically about Barron, meeting GNG. We shouldn't be judging the reason why sources gave significant coverage to Barron, the fact is that reliable and independent sources did so.
  WP:NOTINHERITED is for AfD arguments, not reasons for sources giving coverage. Skyshiftertalk 11:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore redirect, and salt. First, I think recreating the page was technically against guidelines/policy; in theory, I think you're supposed to go to DRV before recreating an article deleted (twice!) by consensus. But that's probably not strictly observed all the time, so ok. Second, and more importantly, this is (a) a teenager whose (b) privacy is desired and who (c) has not yet done anything noteworthy aside from being born.
  WP:MINOR is not an obstacle to be waited out, it is a philosophy that doesn't dissolve on an 18th birthday. I think recreation should be prevented until there is a consensus somewhere that overrides previous AFD's. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

While I support redirection (see below), I want to point out a large error in your argument. DRV is not a requirement to recreate a page that was not salted, especially when the page was redirected eight years ago and there are presumably many additional references about him than there were at that time. Frank Anchor 13:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "large" error; as I said, my more important argument was my second argument. I'll defer to your experience with recreating previously deleted pages, I'm sure you have more experience with page deletion norms than I do. It just seems odd. For most processes on WP, consensus can certainly change, but you generally need a new consensus to override it, not just one person who disagrees. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bold recreations are acceptable as long as they are not duplicates of a prior version and notability can reasonably be argued to have changed;

WP:G4 would not apply in those cases. —Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Floquenbeam, I greatly respect you and I hope you don't see this as an attack on you - but do you have sources for Barron himself wanting privacy? I've seen many sources that talk about his mother keeping him private while his father was president - but I have yet to see a source that actually has in Barron's own words that he wants to be a private individual.

Our guidelines on figures who desire privacy may apply and would lead me to consider that Barron shouldn't be discussed in depth (in his own article or as a section in another article), but generally speaking that would only apply if he has intended to keep his own privacy - not simply that his mother kept him private as a minor. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course it isn't an attack, no worries. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect an actual public source that he wants privacy. He's an 18 year old kid, and they - even famous ones - are not in the habit of publicly announcing they want privacy. I doubt that such a source exists, but that doesn't weaken my assumption, barring any evidence to the contrary, that there's still an expectation of privacy when you've 18, and you've never done anything that would lead anyone to even assume the opposite. Even this delegate stuff is not something he sought out, it's something that others - in an attempt to suck up even more to his dad - tried to force upon him, and my understanding is he declined. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm torn - he did decline the invitation, but he didn't do it (publicly) for reasons of privacy/etc, but because of "prior commitments". To me, that would've been a perfect opportunity for him to express if he did not wish to be covered in the media this way. And that statement didn't even come from him, but from the office of Melania. You're right that we don't really have anything from him at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:37, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets our notability guide with SIGCOV. Lightburst (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets sigcov. The article does need to get edited. Perhaps send it to draft? --evrik ^(talk) 13:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect again and salt. Tabloid stuff. Articles for people who only get such attention because they are family of X, not because of what they have really done, should in general be redirected to X.
  Fram (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Notable is notable, we don't care why they are notable, only that they have significant coverage in reliable sources. Which this article does. Anyone citing
  WP:NINHERITED is not understanding that essay, and should carefully read the disclaimer at the top. It only applies to "arguments to avoid", and nobody is arguing Keep merely on the grounds of who he is. Everyone here is arguing keep because of the existence of sources. So please stop citing WP:NINHERITED unless you can point to a Keep vote that is applicable. WP:NINHERITED does not apply to the sources themselves, nor does it apply to the person themselves. What the heck does it apply to then, you may ask? Read the essay! -- GreenC 15:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore redirect and salt — articles about Trump family with mere mentions of Barron (and what he is wearing) are not significant coverage. Passing mention in an article about an eclipse is not significant coverage. This is not royalty, despite the name Barron.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GreenC's comments. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect and salt — So little of this article is focused on Barron. Much is about the relationship of Donald and Melania to their kid—interesting, sure! But as it currently stands, this feels like a BLP violation and a half for someone who shows no signs of being a public figure in their own right. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect and salt it. Per all the above arguments in favor of this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 21:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced with ample coverage. Has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, which is the requirement laid out in
  ping when replying. 02:32, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Meeting GNG does not mean the article cannot be merged to another. GNG is a guideline, and guidelines are to be

  WP:N - states, in its lead, that [Meeting GNG]... is not a guarantee that a topic will be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Which is exactly what is being proposed here. Most notable material about Barron is already included in Family of Donald Trump#Third marriage. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 05:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Restore redirect per David Fuchs, Mdann52, and Generalissima (among others), without prejudice to a standalone article in the future when and if his status changes from private family member to public figure. 28bytes (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect and salt - RS clearly treat him as notable only because of his father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riposte97 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt as a first choice and Redirect and salt as a distant second choice. Otherwise unnotable teenage child of an extremely divisive living person. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outright deletion is a terrible option. The son of a president is, at the very least, a highly likely search term. Frank Anchor 13:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect and salt – clearly only notable through association with his father unlike Ivana Trump and Ivanka Trump— Iadmc♫^talk  06:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this AfD from DYK because I do some hook promoting there and this article was featured at DYK. I am rather surprised to see so many editors calling for a redirect when we have so much coverage of this person independent of his famous father. Making redirect arguments like teenage child of an extremely divisive living person is really not a good argument. This makes it seem like it is a

WP:IDONTLIKEIT vote. Or he is a private person, that too is not an argument based in our guides. The reason this keeps getting recreated is because he is notable. I hope the closer considers our N guidelines and policies. and NEXIST. Looks like roughly 6k people view the article daily, so they come to us for facts and we say??? NOPAGE? I hope the closer considers that the arguments seem to be trying to invalidate our notability guide like a form of jury nullification? I am traveling but will watch this AfD because I find this extremely puzzling. Lightburst (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:BLP needs to followed here at all times, though that doesn't seem to be a problem at the moment — Iadmc♫^talk  07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll add that he fails the

WP:ANYBIO test, too — Iadmc♫^talk  07:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Restore redirect - actively
  WP:LPI, notability not inherited, etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore redirect, Trump's notability is due to his parents. He is not independently notable himself. I'm not sure I would support a salt in this case because it is still very possible that he could become notable in the future. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect, BLP always overrides weak notability claims and this is no exception. JoelleJay (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: While he does have some coverage through a handful of sources, he has no independent notability beyond merely being the son of a president. This is different from the first three Trump children, who are all independently notable in their own rights, so I do not find the argument conflating them convincing. Curbon7 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect - I'll give the same response I gave at BLPN. So many BLP issues. This article should be speedily deleted, and the earth salted so it never pops up again. This is one of the reasons I decided to stay with Wikipedia so long ago. It's this sort of mob-mentality where people think it's ok to go after someone's child to get at them. This is why the left scares the bejesus out of me, because you never see these tactics coming from the right^{[disputed – discuss]}. Personally, I have no love for Donald Trump. (I think he's a complete moron, and every time he speaks he removes all doubt. The only reason he's so popular with the right-wing nutjobs is because he's even more popular with the left-wing nutjobs; they are in love with their hatred of him. It's a case of "the enemy of my enemy...") But going after someone's family --and especially children-- is stepping way too far across the line. Definitely nuke it. Zaereth (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect per the arguments made above. The subject has barely been involved in press unrelated to his father, and, from what it seems, sources about him simply discuss his mystique. Neo Purgatorio (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect per all above. There is nothing of encyclopedic worth lost by people only reading the material present in Family of Donald Trump#Third marriage.

What extra stuff does this page have? He watched an eclipse from the balcony of his house? So did I. He brought his friends home once? So did I. He helps his boomer father open his computer? So do I. What is notable in all this? And I don't think we should be covering somewhat creepy Japanese stans making fanfics of him. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 07:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and salt cos we keep having this conversation again and again despite no material change in Barron's notability. This is the 3rd nomination. Enough is enough. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 05:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, per the argument from QoH and Generalissima here, as well as the concerns raised by Yngvadottir in the Wikipediocracy thread about this AfD. jp×g🗯️ 08:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect per
  WP:BLP. Barron Trump's notability is strictly the result of being Donald Trump's son. Sure there will be sources specifically about a president's son, but that doesn't mean a standalone article is needed. No opinion on whether or not this should be salted.Frank Anchor 13:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Also, salt for a finite duration (I would suggest one year but at a minimum through the current election cycle) and ECP protect after that. Attempts to recreate this article (should the subject become more notable in his own right) during this time go through DRV or

WP:AFC. Frank Anchor 12:40, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - A 100% notable biographical topic. Let's try to be an encyclopedia providing information for those that seek it rather than knowledge gatekeepers. That the article is terrible is irrelevant. Passes GNG. Easily. Carrite (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on WPO asked my about my opinion here. This is MILES over the GNG bar. Here are three, significant, independently published pieces of coverage of presumed reliability from last month alone. Honestly, only IDONTLIKEIT or a profound misunderstanding of GNG can lead anyone to anything other than a Keep perspective, I think...

• People magazine, May 20, 2024, "Barron Trump: Everything to Know About Donald Trump's Youngest Son."

https://people.com/all-about-barron-trump-donald-trump-son-7507615

• The Tennessean, May 18, 2024, "Barron Trump graduates: What will Donald Trump's youngest son do now?"

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2024/05/18/barron-trump-graduates-donald-melania-show-up-at-oxbridge-ceremony/73734727007/

• San Diego Union-Tribune, May 8, 2024, "Barron Trump, 18, to make political debut as Florida delegate to the Republican convention"

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/nation-world/story/2024-05-08/barron-trump-18-to-make-political-debut-as-florida-delegate-to-the-republican-convention