Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 February 4

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< February 03	February 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PySynth

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

This was prodded back in 2009, with the rationale "Non-notable Python script." That seems notable to me still. There's a few primary and directory-style links on the internet, and a blog entry, maybe two--but that's it. Drmies (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable software, fails WP:NSOFT. MaterialWorks _(talk) 17:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MaterialWorks, NN. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion about the Ontario Canoe Island is to do a Merge or Redirect but it seems like the consensus here for this Canoe Island is to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canoe Island (Northwest Territories)

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

These are small and insignificant islands with no significant coverage beyond database entries. Neither GNG nor GEOLAND are met. –dlthewave ☎ 20:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Canada, and Islands. –dlthewave ☎ 20:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Islands (and lakes) are not automatically notable and more than a name database item is required for stand-alone articles. The coordinate points closer to a Fox Den Island on Google Maps than a small sandy shoal which may be this one, which doesn't seem likely to have the sources needed for notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: location is extremely remote and almost certainly uninhabited. Also, the location pointed to is a delta, not an island, and the larger islands nearby are named something else. If location is correct, this would be a very small islet. Elinruby (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, google and bing maps for coordinates given show water, maybe adjacent to a Fox Den Island ( per google maps) at delta of Anderson River into Woods Bay (per this map linked from Anderson River article, which is an offshoot of Liverpool Bay perhaps by that map, while Bing maps gives point location of Liverpool Bay around towards Eskimo Lakes. It is not clear to me that Anderson River flows into Liverpool Bay, how did that implication get into the article (which says the island is in Liverpool Bay? Anyhow if we cannot identify the island on a map we shouldn't keep an article about it. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Canoe Island jengod (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merger option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nom) - I would question the usefulness of merging far-flung islands that happen to have the same name. There are many thousands of tiny islands across Northern Canada and there's really no point in even mentioning them if we have nothing more than a database entry. –dlthewave ☎ 02:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jengod and Dlthewave, is the a possible merger target for this one? It is an island in what? And User:Eastmain, could u pls clarify what second island exists... the article currently states something like " the island is in a bay and it is in an island". Maybe a second nearby Canoe Island needs to be covered in the disambiguation oage Canoe Island. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 05:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is how i lean currently, with my questions and comments above. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 06:09, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Split to separate articles; then merge to List of islands of Canada, or mention in Anderson River (Northwest Territories) and Amundsen Gulf. The current title can then redirect to the disambiguation page. Peter James (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To Peter James -- that seems a bit confused as a !vote, I for one don't know what you want. About splitting to 2 articles, do you happen to understand what 2 islands are being talked about, if the article is talking about 2? I couldn't figure out that myself.

Referencing the list-article List of islands of Canada seems helpful in this discussion, and I don't recall seeing it before. Its inclusion criteria are not clear, but it looks to me that it is trying to mention just the 200 or so biggest/most important islands in Canada. This "Canoe Island" is a remote, tiny speck compared to any of them, and I don't think it should be included there at all. My 2 cents. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 17:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you look in the references, there are database listings for two different islands which you can open to see their respective locations. We wouldn't normally include them in a single article like this; looks like the second one was added just after the article was deprodded. In my opinion it's a moot point because there's no evidence of notability whatsoever. –dlthewave ☎ 17:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability at all, there's nothing to split or merge. Avilich (talk) 14:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DVD43

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and Wikipedia:Notability (web). A simple google search shows you downloads and where to download it, nothing reliable. Previous discussion to delete this article was all deletes, the reasons were that the article fails GNG.`~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. `~HelpingWorld~`^(👽🛸) 22:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like nothing much has changed in the last 14 years re notability, and the website has been highjacked. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no sources. MaterialWorks _(talk) 23:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2010 United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts#District 4. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Bielat

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been nominated twice. The first proposal (here) resulted in a recommendation to delete. It was found that his candidacy did not meet WP:POLITICIAN. The second proposal (here) resulted in "no consensus." That no consensus took place during the 2012 election in which he was a candidate. I believe the last decade has demonstrated that the first deletion was the correct call. There are two potential claims to notability here. The first is his two congressional candidacies on which I have a difficult time believing any historian will write in any meaningful context (as opposed to Evan McMullin or Christine O'Donnell. The second is a business career for which none of the companies are particularly notable. In the interest of avoiding recreations or editing numerous red links, this article should redirect to 2010_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Massachusetts#District_4 Mpen320 (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Massachusetts. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if, arguendo, candidates for the United States Senate were notable, House candidates are not. Again, it's different with a perennial candidate, who might be notable by iteration. There's some coverage, as with any Federal election, but not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2010_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Massachusetts#District_4 Mpen320 (talk per nom, as a viable WP:ATD. An appropriate redirect target, given that his performance in that election (in terms of voting percentage) is his most successful to date. Per the nom and Bearcat, he fails the criteria of WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, and thus dosen't qualify for a standalone article. Sal2100 (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to GMA Network (company)#Pinoy Hits. Star Mississippi 20:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy Hits

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

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without WP:BURDEN. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GMA Network (company)#Pinoy Hits, unless there are non-GMA sources are found, even the secondary sources. Similar outcome to 2nd Avenue AFD, which is ended up in a redirect, fails WP:NBROADCAST. 172.125.126.113 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GMA Network (company)#Pinoy Hits - Fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onel5969 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GMA Network (company)#Pinoy Hits: Most results from Google are from the channel's parent company, falls under WP:PRIMARY. If secondary sources has been found, please ping me. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, and WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GMA Network (company)#Pinoy Hits for now. Fails WP:NTV per nom. Very little to no coverage from non-GMA news sites. SBKSPP (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 20:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now I Know What Made Otis Blue

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

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without WP:BURDEN. Current version is entirely unsourced. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been updated and now contains more information. Three sources have been added. --Bensin (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added more sources for charting. Not impressed by the single sentence from the AllMusic review though. Unless more is found, I think it'd be best to merge the charting info and that single sentence into the album article. QuietHere (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Using WP:NSONG guidance. Several results in News[1]. Books[2]. Videos, for what it's worth.[3] Broadway World called the song a "solo hit" indicating rank on sales chart (factor criterion #1).[4] Melody TV says it was "Top 16 in France".[5] -- Yae4 (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Save, no comment. BeenDominic (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC) — BeenDominic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per WP:HEY based on the good work by Geach and QuietHere. Bearian (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Jets (Minnesota band). Star Mississippi 20:29, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Curiosity (The Jets song)

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

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without WP:BURDEN. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Jets (Minnesota band). I would normally say "merge" per WP:PRESERVE, but all the information in the topic is already contained in the target. I attempted to find sources for this, but perhaps my search terms are lacking. Anyway, I couldn't find substantial coverage of the nominated topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per 78.26. Which is what is was. Fails WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Jets (album): Barely found anything about the song aside from mentions in Google Books. Not even a Top 40 hit, though it has received a lot of airplay on several Top 40 stations back in the day, like KIIS. ASTIG 😎🙃 04:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Just No Other Way and will ECP the redirect Star Mississippi 20:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Before I Fall in Love

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

Very minimal coverage in reliable sources. Multiple attempts to redirect have been reverted without WP:BURDEN. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Just No Other Way per Note 1 from WP:NSONG. This single is not notable enough to have it's own article. MaterialWorks _(talk) 23:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Just No Other Way - Not seeing anything in a Google search that would be an acceptable source for the song specifically - no reviews, nothing. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 02:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Just No Other Way per above. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Real Love (Dan Hill album)

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

Very light/minimal coverage of album in reliable sources. Attempts to redirect by multiple editors have been reverted. Unless someone can find significant sourcing required to meet requirements per WP:NALBUMS, redirecting to Dan Hill is still the best option. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very minimal sourcing and a WP:BEFORE shows very little coverage. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redirection would make sense if the disambiguated title were a plausible search term; I'm sceptical that it is. Can't find sources online; I'd imagine that sources might exist in print media but if so they haven't been cited. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 02:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There's too few sources. In its defense, there is an Allmusic page. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The clear consensus, in addition to the nomination being withdrawn. Star Mississippi 20:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Rainier

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

The sources are three articles in the same local newspaper, a blog posting from a columnist for that same newspaper, and a listicle from a local business's blog. I did some searching on my own and didn't come up with anything better. This was discussed at WT:DYK#Lady Rainier for a while; a few more sources were found, but just passing mentions that didn't contribute to satisfying WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Washington. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is nothing wrong with Seattle Times nor the fact that the three articles are published in the same paper, unless you have a specific concern that all three distinct authors are not independent from each other and or the subject of article. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with the Seattle Times per-se, other than that it's local coverage. But more importantly, it's all the same source. Quoting from WP:GNG, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand "series" here to be the decisive factor, for example if one newspaper is covering an ongoing story, and different authors contribute different pieces for example about a murder trial, it's likely that the same editor is supervising/commissioning the series, but I am not seeing that here. I'll stop commenting and let others opine here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Where's the geographic diversity of sources guideline? Haven't been able to find it... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Shushugah that separate coverage in the same periodical does not constitute a series as mentioned in WP:GNG. Some of your concern re: sources is valid to me, but I think that Template:More citations needed added to the top would be more appropriate than deleting the article because of it. DJ Cane (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict) We have enough to establish notability for this sculpture. The sculpture has a 120 year history which is documented in the Seattle times and in books. In our notability guidelines there is not requirement that the WP:RS be international or national; only that it is reliable. The sculpture appears in books and newsprint throughout the 120 years history of its existence. The sources in the article are non-trivial secondary sources discussing the sculpture. I submit that the sculpture passes WP:GNG with coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Bruxton (talk) 15:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep our GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the three main sources are from the same newspaper but given that it’s a reliable secondary source, that’s not a problem. Those sources establish GNG. Schwede 66 16:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. I disagree with people's judgement here about the quality of the sources, but it's obvious I'm in the minority, so withdrawing this. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per the sources in the article PeterHaris (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC) User has been WP:CUBLOCKed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems to me that Schwede66, DJ Cane, and Shushugah are mistaken – RoySmith used the wrong quote, though. He takes his statement from an explanatory footnote, but right there in the guideline prose, it says Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. Nothin' about needing to be a series in there. Combined with the fact that it's local coverage, and therefore is predisposed to take more notice than would probably otherwise be due, I can't really establish a GNG pass. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:41, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could argue about the role of a footnote in determining source use all day, but also note the additional sources Bruxton brought up that show that the statue makes significant appearances in other reliable sources as well, adding to my idea that we should apply Template:More citations needed rather than delete as the Seattle Times articles (in my opinion on their own) plus Bruxton’s sources satisfy WP:GNG. DJ Cane (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The links are, respectively, a passing mention and another Seattle Times article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, WP:GNG mentions five criteria: To have significant coverage (doesn’t say how many sources need to offer this) from a reliable (Seattle Times qualifies for sure), secondary source (Seattle Times plus the book), that is independent of the subject (also met). The fifth is that the presence of these four provides a presumption that the topic discussed in the article is notable though that it could certainly be debated. What I mean to say is that Bruxton’s additional sources show that there are more out there beyond the Seattle Times. While I’m not in a position to do this, I think it’s a safe bet to say that if someone looked deeply in libraries in the Puget Sound Region they would find additional books at least lightly discussing this topic, not to mention what may also be online. For me, this meets the presumption as described in WP:GNG. Of course the vast majority of coverage of a statue (with few exceptions) is going to be local, that doesn’t make it not notable, neither does a source section that leaves some to be desired. DJ Cane (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG also says, in its fourth criterion, that Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. To count for GNG, each qualifying source needs to give significant coverage (there are exceptions, and I don't believe this is one of them). A passing mention doesn't count. If there's SIGCOV out there, I'd be happy to assess, but speculation a GNG pass does not make. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leeky, you're forgetting this is AfD. Speculation about the possible existence of sources is how the game is played, despite WP:SOURCESEXIST being a WP:ATA. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stand behind my argument as being evidence based. DJ Cane (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we speedy close already, since nominator has withdrawn? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:49, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. After reading @DJ Cane's argument, I'm thinking of withdrawing my withdrawal. It'll be amusing to see what else people come up with. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Can this be closed now? I see your doubtfulness in withdrawing, but seven (6.5) days after the start of this discussion, I see seven Keep votes with only one Delete vote. Also pinging theleekycauldron in case you have anything to say. Timothytyy (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can do whatever you want. Folks here seem to have a deep misunderstanding of what WP:SIGCOV means, but I'm not going to fix that by arguing here, so whatever. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal only works if no one has !voted to delete, which I have. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:20, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNC, and per discussion and the statues staying power (exhibited since 1903). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. It's an art of work publicly exhibited in a major city for over 100 years. There are multiple secondary sources in a reliable source. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Deleted as a CSD G4. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JohneL NG

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is described as an up-and-coming act by the sources cited in the article. He doesn't have a music career to speak of and has only released songs. None of his music has been discussed in reliable sources and he hasn't done anything to warrant a stand-alone article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's charted on a digital platform only, which we don't count towards notability. Nothing else found we can use for GNG Oaktree b (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources in the article seem to be very reliable, nor does he have significant coverage. Seems like he's only known for one song he released. MaterialWorks _(talk) 23:16, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Most of the sources listed are reliable. See Nigerian Sources.Wikispendo (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikispendo, as the creator, you're only allowed to comment and not !vote. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 14:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT refs do not appear to meet RS. It should also be noted that this is actually the second AfD for this subject in the past year (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnel-NG). It is also SALTed at Johnel NG and Johnel NG (Rapper) and was deleted previously at JohNel NG, Johnel Music, Johnél NG, and Johnel (Rapper). Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:05, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GoodGirl LA

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Pulse Nigeria and Native Magazine published interviews they conducted with her. However, these sources aren't independent of her. She was nominated for a notable award, but not as a lead act on the song. It is simply WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have a stand-alone article. None of her music has been reviewed or discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:GNG and WP:NBIO with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.Wikispendo (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikispendo, as the creator, you're only allowed to comment and not !vote. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:AFDDISCUSS, "The author of the article can make their case like everyone else." Beccaynr (talk) 17:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to @Beccaynr: for the accurate assessment. scope_creep^Talk 12:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the accurate assessment. @Beccaynr. Wikispendo (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seemed to have a bit of career as a singer. She has been signed, has good streaming evidence and social media coverage indicate career success. Passes WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 12:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. NYC Guru (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Sources already listed in the article made it easy to expand, but advice to Wikispendo is to not leave a new article as a one-sentence stub for so long; otherwise your articles will keep landing at AfD. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. Wikispendo (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Namenj

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He has not been discussed in reliable sources. As a matter of fact, the only reliable source is the announcement of him being signed to a label that is borderline notable. None of his songs or musical releases have been discussed in reliable sources. A Google search of the subject doesn't show reliable sources discussing him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non-notable musician does not pass the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sourced with less than stellar sources. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 20:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carmel High School, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore

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

Can't find anything that would count as an WP:NORG pass. All I can find is user-generated content like Urban Pro and Edu Vidya, which doesn't confer notability. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Karnataka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Worth mentioning that article completely lacks any sources. (Also found a passing mention for their sports teams in the Deccan Herald, "Carmel HS emerge champs". But no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources conferring notability per WP:GNG or WP:ORG.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:GNG - appears to be 100 % original research, and not notable. Also, according to my long-standing standards about high schools, this small, private school is not in any way notable. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sibaya Casino and Entertainment Kingdom

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

Was draftified in the hopes of improvement, but moved back without any significant changes. Currently, no in-depth sourcing from independent, reliable, secondary sources, and searches did not turn up any. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ❯❯❯ Raydann ^(Talk) 15:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is this recent North Coast Rising Sun piece describing the venue and its community involvement, but it is predominantly interview-based and wouldn't be enough to sustain WP:NCORP in itself. AllyD (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a well-known casino and easily meets WP:GNG. A few minutes of searching produced a large amount of material. Here's news coverage about it from WP:RS (IOL carries coverage from multiple newspapers in the Independent Newspapers Group) [6][7][8][9][10][11][12].[13][14][15] Sunday Times/Times Live: [16][17]. Incidental coverage from Sunday Times: [18]. News24: [19][20][21][22][23]. [24] I can add more links if these are deemed insufficient, I got tired of pasting them. Park3r (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION, an excellent essay. --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Park3r's comment. GeographicAccountant (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION, and per Park3r's comment. Jedi wiki 10 (talk) 11:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:GNG (I've searched) and the WP:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION essay is utterly unconvincing and has no links to policy at all, it's just the opinion of an author who thinks that all castles and tourists attracts are notable. I'll make my !vote based on policy and guidance not someone who doesn't respect them. CT55555(talk) 02:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Masi

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

Non-notable musician. The artists with whom he's worked are very notable, but not him by a long shot. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do find some sources but have no idea how reliable they are, as they are particularly in the "metal" world. All That Shreds magazine has a fairly lengthy article about him that covers much of the music-related bio that is here. Metal-Archives has a shorter article that is a review of one album. Vintage Guitar has an interview, and says that he was nominated for a grammy. However, I don't find him listed in the Grammy awards site. LA Times has an article covering a performance by his band, and has a few sentences about him. It's all pretty thin. Lamona (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the articles mentioned above there is also this AllMusic bio here that again mentions his nomination for a grammy award. Also there are staff reviews of three of his albums here, here and here, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - based on the sources found above, he is arguably notable. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. We have basically even numbers of editors advocating Redirecting this article and those who want to Keep it. Luckily, a possible redirection, split, renaming or restructuring of this article is a discussion that can continue on the article talk page. Also, I'm here to assess this discussion not adjudicate whether or not Byzantine emperors and Roman emperors should be together on the same list or on separate lists or some sort of third option which is a content decision. This discussion has already been relisted twice and I don't think a final relist will substantially alter the divide in opinions here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Byzantine emperors

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

The List of Roman emperors is a featured article that contains the Byzantine Emperors also; whereas this article is sort of a mess and provides nothing that isn't provided by the Roman emperors list. Feel that this should be redirected to List of Roman emperors. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Royalty and nobility. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect FRA as outlined by OP. I do not feel that a separate page for the Eastern emperors is strictly necessary. Furthermore, the "master" page with all Roman emperors contains more details and, rather than having one cell with a relatively lengthy description for each emperor, has everything separated and organized more neatly; it's more to the point. Whoever wishes to see more detail can click through to the page of the emperor. As a little sidenote, I would suggest that the Greek names for all emperors on the Byzantine list from Constantine I to Focas are also penned down on the Roman emperor page, next to the English/Latin one(s), as is already the case for all emperors from Heraclius to Theodosius III. LVDP01 (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I always found the adition of that "Notes" section quite weird. These are supposed to be consice lists of rulers, not a list of small biographies. And bout the Greek names, I believe the Greek names are only given after 610 because of the language shift in official documents. Roman emperors always spoke Greek (Marcus famously wrote his Meditations in Greek). Personally I think adding the names would make the Name section much more tight. Either way, we can discuss that later. Tintero21 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect; I see no reason to have two separate lists. One version is clearly better than the other; it's basically the same information but more concise and better sourced. Tintero21 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The topic is notable and common sense suggests that there should be a page dedicated solely to this, but the article fails the criteria of WP:CONTENTFORK. Avilich (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably redirect but splitting List of Roman emperors to exclude from it those in the period after the end of the Western Empire would also be feasible. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Aza24 (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The List of Roman Emperors is a typical example of original research, or rather original synthesis. Borsoka (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this discussion as redirect but am re-opening it per a request. Per WP:RELIST, any administrator is welcome to reclose at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My stance remains the same. I also want to add that I fail to see the relevance of the Holy Roman Emperors to the List of Roman emperors, as well as how they have "more of a connection with Rome"; even if this was true, they still are not actual Roman emperors, and should be kept separate. Same goes for the Latin emperors, Ottoman sultans, and Russian tsars among others post-1453, whom I cannot consider to be Roman emperors by any means. LVDP01 (talk) 20:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per above. Two articles are literally the exact same. However, we should not include the Holy Roman Empire, Latin Empire, Ottoman Empire, or Russian Empire in the list. Just Augustus to Constantine XI.

I think we should also start a broader discussion over the use of the term "Byzantine" on Wikipedia, and the incredibly arbitrary conventions regarding its use. For example, all "Byzantine" emperors from Constantine I to Justinian II are referred to as "Roman", yet everyone after are "Byzantine", with no elaboration. What changed from Justinian II to Philippicus? This is common throughout all of Wikipedia. Some individuals in the fifth and sixth centuries are referred to as "Byzantine", yet some in the seventh and eighth are referred to as "Roman". It leads to lots of edit warring, and general confusion for the reader. This page is just one example of a widespread problem on this we should seek to resolve, and provide a consensus on what is "Byzantine" and what is "Roman" (though I personally favor the view that Rome continued uninterrupted from 753 BC to 1453 AD). PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justinian II and many others were originally referred as "Byzantines" in their articles, but successive edits changed it to "Roman"; I'm surprised no one noticed it before. I always interpreted "Byzantine" as meaning "everything after the fall of the West". Assigning exact dates its quite arbitrary, but they are still points of reference. Justinian I may be called "the last Roman" by some, but he's still mostly referred as "Byzantine", with his reconquests marking the "peak" of the Byzantine Empire. I think we could rename the "later Eastern emperors" (which should start with the Justinians) to something like "later Byzantine emperors" or just "Byzantine emperors", with that section serving as the redirect of Byzantine emperor, maybe with an explanatory text or something. Tintero21 (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But my main point is, why? To put 476 even as the date for the fall of the west is incredibly misleading, as:

a. Literally nothing changed in 476, except the position of Western Augustus was abolished.

b. Most Romans of the time actually saw this as a reunification of the empire, as Odoacer pledged allegiance to the east.

There was no "Fall of the West", honestly if you were to put a date on it, the Punic Wars would be the closest thing, but even that can't be defined.

My point is that there is literally no reason why this list should be divided (especially as both articles convey the exact same thing), except to follow an arbitrary scholarly consensus that doesn't really exist. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Avilich: The topic is notable and common sense suggests that there should be a page dedicated solely to this. Our current list of Roman emperors page represents a highly "legitimist" interpretation. The Latin emperors are excluded in favour of the Laskarids, as are the rulers of Trebizond. The Holy Roman Emperors, who had a stronger connection to Rome, are ignored entirely. The list stops in 1453 without regards for any subsequent claims. In fact, we have three articles on such claims: Succession of the Roman Empire, Succession to the Byzantine Empire and Ottoman claim to Roman succession. I'm not saying this interpretation is wrong, but it is a particular POV that treats the claims of the Byzantine rulers very seriously and the claims of everyone else as nonsense. My own opinion, which agrees (IIRC) with that of E. A. Freeman, is that calling the empire "Roman" is unproblematic and preferable down to the 8th century. During that century, the emperors lose control of Rome (permanently) and, in 800, a rival claim to legitimacy is created. After that, "Byzantine" is preferable for the eastern empire for clarity.

If we are to have one list like this, I would title it List of Roman and Byzantine emperors for clarity, like our List of Roman and Byzantine empresses. I don't think it will help readers to land at the current page when they search for "Byzantine emperor". The lead would have to be adjusted, since it is concerned entirely with the ancient period. Moreover, the validity of the current list has been questioned. —Srnec (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, your comment here has caused me to realise that a separate Byzantine emperor article, like Roman emperor is a desideratum. Furius (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for better or worse, as long as we don't merge Byzantine Empire into Roman Empire, i.e., as long as the 'Byzantine' state is commonly treated as a distinct topic of study and identified as such, the topic of 'Byzantine emperors' will also need to have its own article. On the rest, I agree with Srnec's comments above. Constantine ✍ 12:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: All the Byzantine emperors called themselves Emperor of the Romans, ruled over a state named the Roman Empire, and their subjects called themselves "Roman". StellarHalo (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. None of the sources cited in the "Main bibliography" section of the List of Roman Emperors contain a list that covers the List's timeframe (from 27 BC to 1454 AD). The books listed in the "Secondary bibliography" section neither cover the same timeframe, and many of them explicitly refers to the Byzantine Empire instead of the Roman Empire. The same is true in case of more reliable lists presented in the "External links" section: Britannica covers the period from 31BC to 491 AD, Livius.org the period until 668 AD, metmuseum the period until 518 AD. Consequently, we can conclude that the List of Roman Emperors is nothing more than originaly synthesis. @LVDP01, Tintero21, Aza24, Avilich, Peterkingiron, PrecariousWorlds, and StellarHalo: why do you think WP should ignore scholarly literature in this specific case? I think the list of the Byzantine emperors should be improved by splitting the List of Roman Emperors to avoid original synthesis. Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  It's odd that we have two seperate articles covering the exact same topic only to please the "scholarly consensus" (even though the scholarly consensus is that the Roman Empire was the Byzantine Empire, and there was no break in continuity.) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Could you refer to sources cited in the List of Roman emperors verifying its timeframe? WP accept scholarly consensus and does not want to create or promote alternative consensuses. Borsoka (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Srnec and Borsoka: I myself argued sometime ago that the Roman emperors' list should be cut off at some point c. 600-700, but there was no consensus for this and the featured list ended up including everyone. But the nomination is correct that the Byzantine list adds nothing in its current state, and readers should not be directed to the page which contains inferior information. A notable topic may still fail WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:CFORK and be redirected, as this article should, until a consensus to split the Roman list emerges; but that discussion is a content dispute and as such belongs on the talk page, not AfD. The current broad definition of Roman is at least not wrong and there's no harm in provisionally keeping it that way until a better division is agreed upon. Avilich (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal. Thank you for your comment. However, I think the current broad definition of Roman emperors is wrong because it is not verified and it presents a specific PoV. Consequently, the present list of Roman Emperors does not meet basic FAL criteria. I think this discussion should be closed without any decision, and the topic should be discussed on the target article's talk page. Borsoka (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is useful to have this separate from the very long list of Roman emperors, in the same way that it is useful to have lists of individual Chinese dynasties' emperors even though we have List of Chinese emperors. Furius (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Also per the points made by Srnec, above) Furius (talk) 11:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and possibly split the list of Roman emperors from the Leonids onward to merge into this article, as appropriate. I think we should follow the majority of the scholarly literature, and conclude that list with Romulus Augustus, or possibly some of his eastern contemporaries who could reasonably go in both lists. Byzantine emperors, even if legitimately called "Roman" in the sense of cultural continuity, are really a separate topic, and should be listed separately under this title. P Aculeius (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel it should be redirected and we rename the page Roman and Byzantine Emperors. I agree we should close the discussion and move this to the talk page. Better to have Wikipedia stand above the historical confusion that was first created due to politics of the 8th century and expanded on in the 19th century when Byzantine studies was also created. Whilst I am not against keeping a page of Byzantine Emperors, ultimately, it's duplicate content and defining who sits where is too hard to get consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eliasbizannes (talk • contribs) 18:26, February 2, 2023 (UTC)
Keep As far as I see it three lists could easily exist in varying level of detail, one very detail named List of Roman emperors that cover the period before the fall of Western Rome, another very detailed named List of Byzantine emperors that covers the post-ancient period, and one simpler list named List of Roman and Byzantine emperors that list them all.★Trekker (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like Mary Beard's thesis that Rome fell when Caracalla gave citizenship to the entire Empire. Of the many ways historians say the Roman Empire transitioned to Byzantine they include:
- Rome was not longer under imperial control (8th century)
- When Egypt was lost and only Greek was spoken (Heraclius era)
- When Rome "fell:" in 478
- When Christianity was formalised (Theodosius? Constantine?)
- when New Rome was inaugurated at Byzantium (330 and the original reason).
...instead, Beard is saying when the citizens of Rome became a political term across the empire, shattering the illusion Augustus first setup that he was carrying on the Republic. It's probably better to say that's when the Principate ended, but going back to this, too many opinions and too many ways to slice and dice. If we combine "Roman and Byzantine", we stay out of these debates and can just organise by rulings Houses as one page. But for that to work, one page and the rest redirects. Elias (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. When we have extremely long articles about extremely involved subject matters, wikipedians typically split them into reasonable sub-articles, occasionally truncating the original long article as a brief guide towards the more detailed subs. I see zero reasons presented which preclude our normal pedia growth processes for this list. List of Roman emperors, while perhaps featured, is way over-long and as several users have stated, not particularly inclusive of subjects like Holy Roman Emperors (which have a direct relationship with the overall subject matter). I believe "keeping" here moves this process forward. Users Srnec and Avilich make better cases than I. BusterD (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historical subject. NYC Guru (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --✠ Emperor of Byzantium ✠ (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above, the topic is notable enough for a stand-alone article and I'm not very sure if deletion would be an improvement. The other article covers a huge period of time, from antiquity to Middle Ages, and thus is crowded, a little hard to navigate, and possibly a bit confusing for the average reader. Since the two empires are very commonly treated as separate entities in historiography and literature and the rullers of the East are commonly referred to as Byzantines, it is possible that this is how the average reader would search for them. Based on my own experience, this article has actually been helpful. Piccco (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is sufficiently notable for a stand-alone page. Merging with Roman emperors wouldn’t be feasible since the Byzantine and Western Roman are generally treated as separate topics, and a merge wouldn’t really be helpful to a reader who may just be confused or find the resulting Roman emperors page difficult to navigate. Shawn Teller (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Lorjuste

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The notability claim here is that he was "associate director of scheduling" in a presidential administration, which is not an "inherently" notable role, so making him notable for this would require him to be the subject of a WP:GNG-passing volume of reliable source coverage about his work in the media and/or books. But the only sources here are deadlinked content from the university student media of his own alma mater, which is nowhere close to sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References (the alumni magazine) each fail to deliver all four attributes: (1) significant coverage, (2) independent, (3) reliable, and (4) secondary source. Rhadow (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As a ny state historian, I was not aware of this guy. I was brought here by deletion page. This is great information. Historians might not quote wiki, but it helps makes connections. Joco179 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bar for inclusion is that the information is notable, by virtue of the subject having received coverage about his work in reliable sources, not whether state historians deem the information "great" or not. Bearcat (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. references are to semi-reliable sources such an an alumni magazine. Our significant coverage standard requires much more, which is lacking here. The quality, quantity, and deppth of sources do not reach our current standards. I was a Democratic committeeman in Upstate NY, during the period 2001-2009, attending the state convention in 2000, but I have never heard of this guy. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Improvements to the article (WP:HEY) and change in !vote indicates a consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Jobe Jr.

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

Notable for only one event. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:BIO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Foundational reference (only one) fails to deliver all four attributes: (1) significant coverage, (2) independent, (3) reliable, and (4) secondary source. Rhadow (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States at the 1980 Winter Olympics as I couldn't find sufficient sources.

Changed to Keep as per sources found by BeanieFan11 Suonii180 (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to pass GNG, see [25] [26] (p2) [27] [28] and [29] (p2). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rhadow and Suonii180:. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TDSnowshoe (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG with the above multiple significant sources that that date from 1979 to 2002. Alvaldi (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While consensus can change, the longstanding practice and precedent has been to keep athletes at the Olympics level. Bearian (talk) 19:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't anymore, the consensus as of last year is that all Olympians need to demonstrate they pass WP:GNG (with a presumption that Olympic medallists would usually satisfy this, but other participants might not). Joseph2302 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough sources found to show he passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:56, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled from Marilyn Monroe

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

The article reads like an advertisement or a puff piece, not an encyclopedia.

Many of the claims in the article are not supported by the source they are cited to.

The article goes off on tangents to talk about things that really belong on different Wikipedia pages.

As there are Wikipedia pages about The Marilyn Diptych and Gold Marilyn Monroe, the need for this article to exist at all is questionable. The Erethizontidae (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Visual arts. The Erethizontidae

(talk) 16:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is way better than Gold Marilyn Monroe (if you're going to mention another article, LINK IT), but we don't really need both - they should be merged into Marilyn Monroe series or something. The nom doesn't contest notability, which is wise, as they are effortlessly notable. Nothing in the nom is a valid reason for deletion. Some trimming could be done, and the student prose touched up. NOTE: Proposing deletion here was the nominator's 10th edit. Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- - PS: Marilyn Diptych is a different work, not part of the series. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic article with advertising tone, fails to meet GNG. Shawn Teller (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? What is "unencyclopedic" about an article about a work by a leading artist? The 23 different refs are variable in quality, but several are of high quality. Did you look at them? Though, as I said, this would be better covering the whole series. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article fails to describe or identify the particular print in the portfolio that this article is specifically discussing. There are 10 different versions of Untitled from Marilyn Monroe 1967 at MoMA and one at the Met The lede states "Untitled from Marilyn Monroe (1967) is one of a portfolio of ten 36×36 silkscreened prints". The article should either be about the portfolio or state which print this article is about. These are iconic images, but this article does not approach it in a way that makes sense. WP:TNT WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're saying merge/rename, not delete, then. Why not say so? Most of the article is about the series anyway. Johnbod (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, if there are wording concerns about the page content then those are easily fixed (if someone hasn't already done so). The topic itself is 100% notable as a stand-alone page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my vote, the article fails to identify which image it is about. There is no indictaion of which collection it is in nor has there been a fair use image added to clarify which image is being written about. An analogous situation could be if an article was written titled "Image of earth taken from Apollo 8" with no image or description, and then went on to discuss the entire series of photographs taken from that mission as well as photography in space in general. I do not think renaming the article to refer to the series will fix the problems of the article. Yes, Warhol's images and assemblies of Marilyn are notable, as are the photographs take from Apollo 8, but the approach here is wrong for an encyclopedic entry. The subject needs to be addressed anew. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phooey! As you say, the 19,000 bytes in the article say very little about the individual print (it is a print, btw, in many collections) as it is mostly about the series/portfolio & the conversion of the article to one about the series would only take a minute of so. Yet you are opposed to this. Why? Johnbod (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources in the article discussing this and other Marilyn portraits by Warhol. I would support a merge per Johnbod. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for a very notable topic, Warhol's series. At first I thought this was a vandal delete request or something and that it would be snow closed when I clicked on this discussion. Kind of amazed that it has received delete !votes. The page covers a notable topic, is well sourced, is entirely credible for Wikipedia's Monroe collection and Warhol collection, and there is nothing broken. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

As discussed above, I propose converting this to an article on the series. I'll open a talk section there. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kristian Lennert