Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 12

< July 11 July 13 >

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. Keep arguments from sock accounts amd sock masters were not considered. Everyone else thought this did nit past muster. Spartaz Humbug! 04:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanak (2023 film)

AfDs for this article:
Sanak (2023 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While it's not a G4, sourcing does not appear to have improved markedly since the prior AFD and the same concerns remain about the sourcing quality. Creator moved it back, so draft space does not appear to be a viable option. No indication it's yet notable and will not be released until September. Note, this is also a copy/paste move so if kept, may need history merge. Star Mississippi 11:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Pakistan. Star Mississippi 11:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article have all the possible news sources which are from well known highly sourced websites. so it should be there on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*:This film have enough coverage on google which shows that it should not get deleted, there are already very less Pakistani film on wikipedia articles and we think this is a good contribution to wikipedia. EventCrest (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Has been blocked as a sock/UPE Star Mississippi 13:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • — EventCrest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 02:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NFF. No reliable source ensures its release in Sep 2023. Better wait till its release and box-office fate. Insight 3 (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable It has all the online information on different cinema websites regarding the film shows and also imdb confirms the date on their page. besides numbers of other wikipedia articles of upcoming film why this page has to wait till its release. it should highly keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 05:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that indicates how it meets NFF, unfortunately. Many other articles exist that shouldn't, that doesn't mean we add more. You were advised how to work on it before the release date, but opted not to follow those suggestions Star Mississippi 12:02, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously it shows that it meets NFF when its release date and news sources are authentic and powerful which showcase the notability how can you just give your personal opinion into that. and i do follow suggestions whenever there is a positive suggestion. Rmpwork (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.
    Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines, including around AfD participation especially signing your comments. Star Mississippi 22:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are majority of movies like Rocky Aur Rani Kii Prem Kahaani Dhai Chaal Jawan (film) Neeyat (2023 film) Neelofar when these upcoming movie’s articles are there in wikipedia then Sanak (2023 film) should also stay on wikipedia and we will keep on making it better and better because our goal is to make our Pakistani film industry established and grow. Rmpwork (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Main Space After going through a detailed research on wikipedia, i have come across that there are plenty of articles on upcoming films which is just like Sanak 2023. also this article do follow NFF as there is booking ticket website https://bookitnow.pk/movie/sanak who confirms the release date. in regards to notable cause number of news source articles are available on the topic. the article is good to go for mainspace not for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpwork (talk • contribs) 19:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting the criteria of WP:NF. Deckkohl (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it does meet NFF. Rmpwork (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Participants are advised not to BOLD random words which could be misconstrued as duplicate voting which is prohibited.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 12 July 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. Joyous! Noise! 02:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abideen Olasupo

Abideen Olasupo (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 activist, Gsearch is straight to social media and primary sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to low participation and recent changes to the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I'm gonna go keep on this one. Appears to meet WP:NBASIC. Policy-based rationale follows.
    The rules: Per NBASIC People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. WP:SIGCOV clarifies that "significant coverage" is coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. As we are ultimately here to decide collectively whether an administrator should use the extraordinary power of deletion to remove this article from the wiki, we must as always be mindful to resolve all doubts against deletion, and to apply the rules flexibly in support of our encyclopedic purpose.
    The sources: It should be noted at the outset that search results may have been skewed by West African naming practices -- as in the article itself, the subject's name is written "Abideen Olasupo" about as often as "Olasupo Abideen". I'm seeing three categories of potentially relevant sources: (1) actual profiles, one unusable and one possibly usable; (2) interviews and mentions that are largely irrelevant to NBASIC but tend to show the subject's encyclopedic significance and likely relevance to readers, which may be relevant at the margins; (3) coverage of various political and journalistic initiatives in which Olasupo has played significant roles, containing coverage of the subject that is significant although perhaps not substantial and can be combined under NBASIC.
    1. Profiles: the first source is the worst. The "Foundation for Investigative Journalism", which might easily be confused with other orgs with similar names, appears to be a project of Fisayo Soyombo with, at best, no clear track record of reliability. That delightfully thorough profile must therefore be cast aside. However, Olasupo has also been the subject of another profile, this one in the The Nation Online. Weighing in at 366 words, it contains substantial biographical information. However, as the "hook" for the profile is Olasupo's past work as a reporter for that newspaper, some might prefer to disregard this source as insufficiently independent. (I do not believe that is warranted, but let's move on.)
    2. Neither substantial nor significant, but still illuminating: cited by CNN as a public policy analyst, interviewed by the (UK) Guardian on world youth poll, profiled by Tony Elumelu Foundation for COVID19 fact-checking initiative in 2020, interviewed on his election fact-checking work in 2023.
    3. Significant though not substantial: Numerous independent reliable sources discuss Olasupo in the context of his FactCheck Elections initiative: [1], [2], [3]. Earlier, he received frequent attention as a leader of the Not Too Young To Run initiative in Kwara state: [4], [5] (contains but is not limited to quotes), [6]. There was also some coverage of his attendance at COP26: [7], [8]. Various outlets have covered his appearance at the UN ECOSOC Youth Forum in 2023: [9], [10]. (I have not attempted to compile a complete list.) None of these require OR to extract the content, and all can therefore properly be combined under NBASIC.
    Conclusion: Olasupo has been the recipient of sufficiently widespread coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, that it is appropriate and consistent with our encyclopedic purpose to combine the available sources under NBASIC. -- Visviva (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Visviva. I am also agreeing to Keep this per basic. Okoslavia (talk) 14:26, 14 July 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. Joyous! Noise! 02:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Faires

Kevin Faires (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)

Nothing found in RS for this individual. Only confirmation of events participated in. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with the deletion. He is a top tier strongman in the international circuit. Nir007H (talk) 00:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here's a relatively in-depth article from the staff wellness editor of an editorially independent source that seems pretty reliable in the field. There's a lot of other coverage that seems reasonable, so we should easily have GNG when considering above article [11][12][13], etc, with a passing mention in the Guardian —siroχo 00:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep GNG is meeting here. Okoslavia (talk) 12:28, 13 July 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. Again, please let's have sources brought up in the AFD discussion find their way into article relatively soon. Many thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Mills Wood

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO. Unable to find any coverage independent of the subject in any reliable sources. I'm not sure role in the The Fugitive and U.S. Marshals are considered significant. J04n(talk page) 19:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - He may weak pass WP:NACTOR but no references given to verify. Can editor of article provide few notable references. DSN18 (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is unfortunate that the Chicago Tribune article is not available electronically. --Bejnar (talk) 14:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's here? -- Visviva (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Thanks to Bejnar, the rogerebert.com citation is enough to verify. It's been a long time since I watched these but I think the role was prominent enough to meet WP:NACTOR. There seem also to be more citations under "Tom Wood", for example [14][15] —siroχo 00:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NACTOR; he’s had significant roles in The Fugitive & U.S. Marshals and Ulee’s Gold. The Film Creator (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. First, as passing at least WP:NACTOR (going by the Tribune article The Fugitive is probably less of a central role than U.S. Marshals & Ulee's Gold, but all appear to meet NACTOR's requirement of significant roles). Second, because unless the Tribune article is a complete one-off he appears very likely to pass WP:NBIO as well; his hopelessly un-Googleable name isn't helping. Finally, because it would be extraordinary (and a sign that our own criteria were seriously out of whack) if six other Wikipedias had organically acquired articles on this fellow and he still didn't measure up. -- Visviva (talk) 01:16, 14 July 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. A possible Merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Public Domain

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:GNG UtherSRG (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Incorrectly tagged at this point. Sources in the article already demonstrate that subject meets GNG, but here's more [16][17][18][19] —siroχo 22:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    added these additional sources to article —siroχo 23:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sources aren't very strong (hard to evaluate book mentions without you know like reading the book, but are theses evidence of notability?) but you could probably just about scrape together a claim. Still, even if you disagree, a merge to the artist's page is better than deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Establishes GNG through sources recently provided, although work is still needed to improve it. Let'srun (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Amy Balkin. Apart from the claim that this is an art project, the article uses a lot of words to say very little. Walt Yoder (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per siroxo, although I think a merge as a new L3 heading under Amy Balkin#Projects could also be fine. Without any real effort on my part to screen for the "best" sources, just grabbing three at semi-random, we've got e.g. about 150 words in this magazine article, more than 100 Spanish words in this book (preview cut off), at least 170 words in this one, and all seem fairly information-dense. This seems comfortably within the WP:GNG and in particular all sources seem to meet the WP:SIGCOV requirement to address[] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.. To the extent we're just haggling over whether to merge, I'd say that the unique properties of a person vs. a place, which affect things like coordinates, categories, etc., would militate in favor of keeping the articles separate. -- Visviva (talk) 01:03, 14 July 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. and Move to Winter (indie rock band). Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samira Winter

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

Fails WP:N and WP:SINGER. I can't find any in-depth coverage about her, and most of the citations in the article and on the internet are about her band. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 21:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Brazil. Kacamata! Dimmi!!! 21:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the LA Weekly piece is significant coverage here as is the Vice piece here, and this AllMusic bio of her band here. There is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Every one of the sources I can find, including the LA Weekly article, discusses the singer within the context of the band. Even within her own article here on WP, the albums are from the BAND "Winter," not the PERSON "Winter." If we had an article on the band, I could easily be persuaded to merge and redirect, but I don't think this singer has enough notability on her own to have a standalone article. Joyous! Noise! 18:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Winter (indie rock band) (or similar, since there's also an American death-metal band named "Winter"). The coverage seems focussed on the band rather than the individual. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposed move, which will require a re-write. If that happens I'll do the rewrite if no one else volunteers, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Winter (indie rock band) or something similar, and rewrite accordingly. Note that the band also has two album articles here: Supreme Blue Dream and Ethereality. I am not so sure about notability for those albums, but they have some basic media mentions indicating that this project is a band called Winter that is headed by Samira W. The band has some additional reliable sources found by Atlantic306 above, so there can be a basic article on them as a band. Samira W. does not qualify for one based only on herself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:47, 18 July 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. I don’t really see a strong enough delete consensus here. Suggest that this gets renominated after a suitable period to allow more thorough source searching. Spartaz Humbug! 04:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy Girl (TV series)

Gypsy Girl (TV series) (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)

Prod placed by another user was contested. A WP:BEFORE search yielded zero sources. I could find no reviews in newspapers and there were no hits in google books or academic search engines You would think a TV show from 2001 would have online sources given that it is from the internet age, but I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 18:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I realise that this is only an essay, but I quote WP:BCASTOUTCOMES "Television series, game shows, and talk shows broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are usually kept." Maybe in 2001 the internet was still at an earlier stage of development. Although I realise that notability isn't usually inherited, both the author Elizabeth Arnold (children's writer) and one of the actors Eleanor Bron do have Wikipedia articles, and the latter is fairly well known. PatGallacher (talk) 00:27, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally WP:BCASTOUTCOMES is a fairly good predictor, and as you say it is an essay and not policy. I would consider this a "short lived" television program given that it only lasted a single season and only had seven 25 minute long episodes. Per BCASTOUTCOMES and WP:NTVNATL (another essay), short lived programs are not necessarily kept. Having found no sources in an extensive search, it's my belief that this program went largely unrecognized by media because it was short lived and that there is not likely to be sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG. Further, per NTVNATL the defining measuring stick for notability is the "presence or absence of reliable sources". At this point we have nothing more that database entries in BFI and TV guide; neither of which have an attributed author or could be considered significant coverage. I'm not seeing an evidence based rationale to keep the article, and after considerable effort trying to find sources with no success I'm fairly confident deletion is the best course of action even in regards to the language at BCASTOUTCOMES per the "short lived" program exception in that essay's language.4meter4 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per PatGallacher. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Necrothesp I am surprised that an admin would support an argument not based in policy. There are zero sources which meet GNG, and a thorough search in newspaper archives, JSTOR, EBSCOE, google books, google scholar, etc. has yielded nothing. Can you please explain why you think this is a good argument? I am honestly disheartened to see an admin who I respect supporting a badly made argument based on an essay and not policy with no supporting evidence.4meter4 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is based on policy. WP:CONSENSUS, which WP:BCASTOUTCOMES merely illustrates. And any editor can make any argument they choose at AfD. I, personally, am disheartened by editors who seem to have the attitude that because someone is an admin they are not allowed an opinion and must merely trot out the "party line" (strangely, usually the one they back!). I've seen it all too often used as a threat against admins (including myself), and that is worrying. I'm sure you did not intend it in that way, but all the same. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is, while nowhere near a full review, at least a recommendation as a pick of the day from The Daily Telegraph. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NTV. Insufficient coverage to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:NTV and WP:NBROADCAST are both essays, so playing one off against the other isn't conclusive. There appears plenty enough coverage to V this, and pretty much everyone agrees that it lasted for at most seven episodes, so coverage is really in line with what we'd expect for an early 2000s half-season show--but I kid. If it's not kept, then merging the whole stub to a section in Elizabeth Arnold (children's writer) is an appropriate ATD. Jclemens (talk) 07:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens the deletion rationale was based on WP:GNG not an essay. As it is we still have zero references with "significant coverage". A brief advert type puff piece in The Daily Telegraph is not in-depth coverage, and neither are un-authored BFI and TV guide database listings. GNG is the standard, and so far none of the keep voters have put forward anything that could be perceived as sig cov such as a critical review or even a listing in an academic reference work on television. I am honestly dismayed that editors with experience are not looking at the sources with the usual critical eye that we apply at AFD across the board. Where are the sources with by-lined authors with some sort of original text, analysis, or commentary? Database entries may verify details, but they are not WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The essays suggest that offline coverage likely exists somewhere, since it was aired nationally. We acknowledge that things for which no sources can be found are not necessarily things for which no sources exist. We have a whole disambiguation page which will still have 20 other entries if this one is removed. Oh, and it doesn't even include a Steven Tyler song of the same name. Think there might be some difficulty searching for sources with that overlap? More to the point, does anyone really think the encyclopedia will be improved by removing a non-promotional permastub? Of course not. Jclemens (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have nominated the article if I hadn't thought the encyclopedia would be improved. Jclemens, your view point boils down to a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument which is listed as an argument to avoid at AFD. Further, basing a keep vote on an essay without community support is not good practice for an admin in my opinion. Additionally, I seriously doubt that sources with significant coverage exist. I have searched extensively for sources in numerous databases, reference works, academic search engines, etc. and I am fairly confident that there isn't any SIGCOV. I am generally very successful at finding critical reviews on obscure TV shows and films (as I create content in the arts regularly), and given that plenty of time has passed for television reference works to include coverage (which they do not currently) I am fairly certain deletion is the best policy based decision in this case. I honestly think this is a non-notable topic and the encyclopedia is improved by deleting the article. We have notability criteria for a reason, and we should follows those policies as written.4meter4 (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So if you did all that legwork, why did it take three relists and me coming along for a proper ATD to be identified? And why did you not address my proposal in your responses to me? I routinely find things that "fairly certain" editors missed, which leads me to believe that, based on a preponderance of evidence, sources do exist for this sort of show, regardless of your stated efforts--I don't need to ABF to believe that you're more than likely wrong. Jclemens (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Sound Blaster. Star Mississippi 14:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sound BlasterAxx

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

not notable as a standalone product; merging to Sound Blaster might be appropriate alternative to deletion. ~TPW 15:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nominator. Performing a WP:BEFORE search returns no RS. FatalFit | ✉ | ✓  00:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It does get some reviews in bigger technical websites[20][21][22][23][24][25] but there's very little here beyond run-of-the-mill coverage and no particular reason to keep the current content (which is largely copied from datasheets and press releases) as a separate article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination, reviews found by Colapeninsula are good, but as they say, not evidence of separable notability. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, otherwise merge per nom. IMO the third-party reviews cited in this AFD and the previous one are sufficient to pass the GNG (edit: and also WP:NCORP/WP:PRODUCTREV, given their significance, depth and apparent independence). However, given particular problems of this article and the general problems of product articles, I would ordinarily still favor a merge. But the problem IMO is that Sound Blaster is already rather unwieldy and is getting into WP:SIZESPLIT territory. It seems like merging now is just going to make more work for future splitters, with no real benefit. (I wonder, though, if perhaps some sort of reconfiguration into a List of Sound Blaster USB products or some such, spinning off that entire L3 heading from Sound Blaster, might be better way to structure our coverage.) -- Visviva (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge, agreeing with the assessment of potential sources by Colapeninsula that they are run-of-the-mill even if reliable and in-depth. SWinxy (talk) 23:33, 19 July 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. Joyous! Noise! 22:14, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hampshire College Summer Studies in Mathematics

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

Does not reach the notability standard; WP:GNG. I found no widespread evidence of significant coverage by WP:RS. Most sources are primary, with a direct connection to the subject, or exclusively local. It reads as a promotional showcase to a minor college program. GuardianH (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Mathematics, and Massachusetts. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really seems to me that this should have been bundled with the nomination of David Kelly, as the two are almost inextricably linked. Here are some sources not present in either article:
    • AMS Notices, more than one full paragraph devoted to discussing HCSSiM
    • Passing mention in a book about Paul Erdos
    • Post at the AMS Blogs about HCSSiM (note that AMS blogs are similar to the blogs described at WP:NEWSBLOG; they have a legitimate editorial process)
    • [26] fluffy coverage of Kelly in the Riverside Press-Enterprise
    • versions of the article about speed limits were published moderately widely (e.g. in the Boston Globe
    • more AMS stuff
  • --JBL (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! I am an alumna of the program in question. I'm 100% new to editing wikipedia, so please pardon my lack of knowledge about how everything works.
    I agree the article is inadequately sourced, and would be more than happy to try to find better sources for lots of it, but I wanted to check first what kinds of sources are allowed. I have read WP:NOR and understand that sources should be secondary or tertiary sources, but am unsure what kinds of sources qualify as such.
    For example, does this letter to the editor (page 2 of the pdf, from Susan Landau) qualify as a secondary source? Or this one?
    Also, there is a documentary being made about the program. When that gets published, will it be a secondary source or a primary source? With-High-Probability (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (To clarify since I can't figure out how to edit - the second post I linked is self-published, but it is by a mathematician and mathematics educator, which means it's a subject matter expert AIUI.) With-High-Probability (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A documentary could be primary or secondary depending on the details. For example, if it has footage of someone involved with the program being interviewed as a "talking head", then I'd call that a primary source for the person's own statements. What I'd look for is whether the program itself had editorial control over the documentary, i.e., whether the documentary is independent. XOR'easter (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi With-High-Probability, I found both the sources you mention (Susan Landau's letter and Jim Propp's blog post) but decided not to include them in my list as indica of notability; I think they could be used cautiously as sources if the article is kept. (Landau's letter could perhaps be used to support inclusion of people on a list of alums, for example.) --JBL (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are by now many other summer mathematics research programs for bright high school students, but this appears to be the one that started them all. I think there is enough coverage for GNG as linked above. For another hard-to-Google but in-depth and reliably published source, there's Susan Landau's "How I spend my summer vacations", AWM Newsletter 11(6), 1981, pp. 8-9, https://www.drivehq.com/folder/p8755087/1748723574.aspx . However, I don't think Kelly has independent notability from this program, so my opinion on his AfD was to redirect here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think we have enough to justify an article. XOR'easter (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I'm seeing steady (if slightly low-wattage) coverage over the years by the AMS, e.g. in the Notices, and other sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think I'm convinced there's enough independent sourcing here to write a verifiable article of acceptable quality. --JBL (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per sources from JBL and per reasoning of David Eppstein. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:49, 19 July 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! 21:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frana Marija Vranković

Frana Marija Vranković (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 theatre director. 2 sources, both of which don't have the greatest quality. Doesn't pass GNG. Article also has many mistakes. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 21:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the creator is User:Fmv~enwiki. The initials of Frana are FMV. Coincidence? I think not! 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 21:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Joyous! Noise! 19:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kitson Cécile

Kitson Cécile (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)

Three official appearances for the Seychelles national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Joyous! Noise! 19:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Dingwall

Jerome Dingwall (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)

Nine appearances for the Seychelles national football team. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. Lots of passing mentions, nothing substantial. JTtheOG (talk) 19:44, 12 July 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 Pain Gap. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anushay Hossain

Anushay Hossain (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)

Wikipedia is not for advertising, marketing or public relations. Nearly all info in this article about Hossain comes from Hossain. The sources lack independence or are passing mentions: Simon & Schuster is the publisher of her book; UVA is a dead link, but appears from the title to be a primary source alumni interview; C-SPAN is a one-sentence identification of who she is; Women's Media Center is an advocacy organization that trained her ("to connect [her] to editors, reporters, producers, and bookers"); Ms. is a primary source interview; USA Today and Newsweek are authored by her; The National Press Club is a passing mention; HuffPost quotes her briefly; The Stream is a show produced by her; The Pain Gap and the excerpt in Vogue are authored by her; and the Spilling Chai podcast is hosted by her.

No independent analysis in third-party sources is cited. Do such sources exist? Searches of the usual types found a capsule review of her book in Library Journal, and full-length reviews in South Asia Journal (a magazine),[29] and The Daily Star.[30] If her book is considered a significant or well-known work, then two full-length reviews might satisfy the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" part of WP:AUTHOR #3. In practice, however, I've found that the community does not consider a single general interest book with two reviews to be sufficient to demonstrate notability of the author. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Bangladesh, and United States of America. Worldbruce (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Pain Gap. From my view, the book is notable, but there does not appear to be support for the "significant or well-known work" prong of WP:AUTHOR#3, which requires this "in addition" to "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" when an author has only written one book. I also consider capsule reviews to be 1 or 2 sentence blurbs, and the Library Journal review therefore more than a capsule and helpful support for WP:NBOOK notability due to the quality of the source and depth of the secondary commentary. Otherwise, similar to the nominator, my searches have not found substantial support for notability that is independent of the book, so a redirect to the book seems appropriate at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the The Pain Gap. There is lots of coverage for the book including several reviews that are easily identified, but there is almost nothing on the author, outside of press for the book launch. I think it perhaps WP:TOOSOON. Really too soon, too tell if she is notable. I think a redirect is the ideal solution here. scope_creepTalk 11:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the The Pain Gap per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:37, 18 July 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. but please move sources found in this discussion into the article as it is still basically unsourced. Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chatchai Narkwijit

AfDs for this article:
Chatchai Narkwijit (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)

Undersourced biography of a living person, which we've deleted before but (apparently) so long ago that G4 doesn't apply. —S Marshall T/C 18:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 18:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Thailand. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Has been profiled by PPTV in a three-minute news scoop[31], and in a spotlight article on the Thai League's website[32]. Most other top search results are transfer news and match reports. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I found [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], among many more Thai sources. Clearly significant figure in Thai lower league football (he's been called the "God" of Thai lower league by multiple sources, with Thai League 1 experience and fefin9eltyh has offline sources, having played in 2000s. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above which show notability. GiantSnowman 18:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:38, 18 July 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! 19:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Basset

Gerald Basset (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)

Two appearances for the Seychelles national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article on Gerald Basset may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines due to a lack of comprehensive and diverse coverage about him. While his role as a football midfielder for Côte d'Or FC is stated, the entry does not provide further substantial and verifiable information about his career, achievements, or influence on the sport. --Loewstisch (talk) 08:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Evangelical Lutheran Synod. Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches

Association of Confessional Lutheran Churches (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 church body which counts only two congregations as a part of it. Fails WP:NORG - no WP:SIGCOV found anywhere. schetm (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Chad international footballers. Liz Read! Talk! 17:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Madjilom

Yves Madjilom (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)

Redirect to List of Chad international footballers. Three official appearances for the Chad national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 16:42, 12 July 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! 17:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dilwala(2023 film)

Dilwala(2023 film) (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)

Dilwala(2023 film)

A naïve Google search shows that this appears to be an unreleased film. IMDB, which is an unreliable source, says that it is upcoming. IMDB also has an incomprehensible summary, which was copied into this article, but which I have removed as copyvio. (The IMDB contributor apparently is not fluent with English.) This article was in mainspace, but was moved into draft space, citing paid editing and sockpuppetry. It was then declined, with the instruction to add reviews when the film was released. It has now been moved back into article space without the reviews (because it hasn't been released). Either the cast listing can be moved into draft space until the film is released and reviewed, or it can be blown up, and started over when the film is released and reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See Dilwala (2023 film); trying to evade the constant speedies there by taking it to a slightly different-named article title. Enough, get some sources with an actual byline from an actual person who typed said source, and I'm completely against draftifying this. Nate • (chatter) 22:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:MrSchimpf - Another attempt at the gaming of names, omitting the space to look different. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and salt. I don't see why an AfD is even needed. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a violation of WP:G4. Partofthemachine (talk) 00:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC) Delete as an attempt to game the system, but this technically does not qualify for G4 speedy deletion because it has not been subject to a previous deletion discussion, as pointed out below. Partofthemachine (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - I don't see a previous AFD under any spelling. Am I missing something? I see repeated submissions, but I don't see an AFD, and I think that this AFD is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There were no previous AfD noms; it's been speedied each time its come up for either sockpuppetry or pay-for-play, so I do think this nom should go the full seven to solidify that consensus. Nate • (chatter) 18:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The First Tour of the Angels

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

Does not meet notability from either WP:NTOUR or WP:GNG. The tour is in small detail in the band's autobiography Once Upon a Nightwish, but however is not enough. I cannot find there to be any more sources, as most of them other sources are about the band members, so I don't see this being a standalone article, as with the other first few tours that were redirected so I would say it would be for deletion.

I will also be restoring the following related articles to nominate them for the same reason of not meeting notability as the article mentioned:

Oceanborn Europe Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wishmaster World Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
World Tour of the Century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) HorrorLover555 (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, undersourced concert tours fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that were tagged as using primary references for five years when it was first redirected back in October 2020. Aspects (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All - none of them pass GNG or TOURS.Onel5969 TT me 12:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of NCIS: Los Angeles characters. Liz Read! Talk! 17:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hanna

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

Although Sam Hanna is a main character in NCIS: Los Angeles, there is no indication in the article that the character is notable enough to have his own article. The majority of the sources used in the article are primary, and a quick Google search doesn't give much information that prove the character's notability. Spinixster (chat!) 14:54, 12 July 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 Mohan Kupleri. Liz Read! Talk! 17:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grihaprevesam

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

Appears to fail WP:NFILM. No reviews found in a BEFORE. No citations found on Wiki page in other languages.

PROD removed with no improvements made to article. DonaldD23 talk to me 14:29, 12 July 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 Lithuania#Science and technology. Liz Read! Talk! 17:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Psichologija

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded because contested on its talk page. No convincing arguments for notability have been brought forward, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a rought consensus here to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certified Automotive Parts Association

Certified Automotive Parts Association (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)

Came here for a COI request but found the page doesn't meet WP:NCORP. While looking for references to satisfy the COI request, I was unable to find anything meeting WP:ORGCRIT with the exception of one book reference here. CNMall41 (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a keep. Here's some sources
    • Probably meet WP:SIRS
      • via General Accounting Office
      • Subcommittee hearing
      • Technical Book with moderate coverage
      • NIST directory
      • (possible SIRS) case filing
      • (likely SIRS, hard to tell from snippet) Journal of American Insurance
    • non-WP:SIRS things that may still improve WP:V
      • passing mention of sub-authorization
      • Quick but nontrivial mention in a magazine
      • another similar mention from another issue of same magazine
—siroχo 05:44, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which one of these falls into the significant coverage definition? Also note I believe the congressional hearing is part of someone from the organization's testimony. None of these meet WP:CORPDEPTH in my opinion. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The GAO source meets it. The Reverse Engineering book meets it (check for 2 locations). The NIST directory meets it. The subcommittee hearing would generally work for me as it should be under penalty of purjury, but we have enough either way. The other ones are a bit more dubious for various reasons but again, we have plenty. —siroχo 17:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A directory listing meets ORGCRIT? That is the very definition of "trivial coverage" in that guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any specific definition of any directory listing as trivial, especially not under that guideline. I'm not sure if you were referring to the "simple listings or compilations" examples of trivial coverage, but this does not fit in that. This directory listing meets WP:CORPDEPTH as it ... provides an overview, description,... survey, ... or evaluation of the ... organization.. —siroχo 19:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think keep because it provides a list of standards for their industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 13:17, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is cited to the organization's website. I also do not see anything in WP:NCORP that says we create pages on organizations because they provide industry standards. Can you tell me how this page meets notability guidelines based on the available sourcing (a requirement of NCORP)? --CNMall41 (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are discussions of the group in peer-reviewed journals [39] and others. The Gscholar linked in the template above brings them up. [40] and a legal one: [41]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to get my head around this. If this was a person, having peer-reviewed journals could help with notability under WP:NSCHOLAR. However, how do discussions in the IEEE and a legal document meet WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 17:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first two talk about the thing for a paragraph, and we have about 20 of them in Gscholar, should be enough for GNG. If this was a person, we'd be off to the races; Mr. XYZ discussed in 20 peer-reviewed journals? Easy notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not saying we have enough for a 40 paragraph article here in wiki, but it's at least enough for a stub. Oaktree b (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I understand that and looked at the references. These are mainly saying that it exists and a brief overview of what it does. Nothing significant so still not seeing how this would get over the hurdle of WP:NCORP. If we allowed articles to be created that we cannot expand and consider them notable based on these types of mentions we could create a lot of company pages. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For me, there are adequate sources such as the two books available to Google Books references above (Motor Vehicle Safety and Reverse Engineering) that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I can understand why there might be questions of the level of "in-depthness" (is that a word?) in those articles but you'd have to start by asking what level you belive might exist to describe the company. Sometimes a company can be notable and do something very simple that doesn't exactly lend itself to the availability of pages of analysis or opinion and I believe this is one of those organizations. With that in mind, the sources meet the criteria in my opinion. HighKing++ 12:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 13:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Morgan (architect)

Paul Morgan (architect) (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)

Little to no WP:SIGCOV. Fails to meet WP:ARCHITECT. Sources are either passing mentions or not independent. ARandomName123 (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, and Australia. ARandomName123 (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Currently citations are from the subject's personal website and a Wordpress page. Several pages of Google results also don't turn up any reliable sources covering him. --Tserton (talk) 21:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a resume and mainly based on primary sources. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:29, 19 July 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. This is an article about a four year old child. We'd need pretty impressive souricng to ever keep such material. I'm satisfied the discussion to date finds this a BLP violation and fails the G10 criteria. BusterD (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navy Joan Roberts

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

This is a four year old child who is not known for anything she has done. She is known only as the out of wedlock daughter of the then drug addicted son of the US president. This article’s purpose appears to be an effort to somehow embarrass her father and grandfather, with her as collateral damage. The subject matter is already covered in the Hunter Biden article and need not be covered in an additional article about the young child. Fails WP:G10 WP:A7 WP:NBIO WP:GNG. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So a four-year-old child is suddenly notable and shamed because of the circumstances of her birth? WP:BLP1E applies here. This is borderline child abuse. WWGB (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an appalling attack on a child with her entire life ahead of her. Needs to be deleted right now. SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick delete Utterly inappropriate BLP, and coverage would only be appropriate within her father's article. Reywas92Talk 14:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could be a brief mention in a Hunter Biden biography here, not needing a whole article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, almost all coverage of her is in relation to Hunter Biden or Joe Biden. WikiVirusC(talk) 15:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ASAP - whether you like or dislike Hunter and Joe Biden, don't drag a little girl into this. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NBASIC and INVALIDBIO. The subject is a minor who has received coverage as a subject to a parental dispute. There's no relevant content that couldn't theoretically be mentioned in father's bio instead. Trout to the nominator for assuming bad faith about the article's purpose and for invoking G10 and A7. Politrukki (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - and a trout to whoever created this page. This is totally inappropriate. What the fuck?— Isaidnoway (talk) 16:40, 12 July 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 Lennard-Jones potential. Liz Read! Talk! 13:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lennard-Jones fluid

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

this article here (Lennard-Jones fluid) is essentially a duplicate to Lennard-Jones potential and should be removed. It does not provide additional information nor it would be clear how the two articles differ regarding their scope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeStep89 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: Duplicates content of the Lennard-Jones potential article and thus needs a rewrite, but there are sufficient reliable sources for a stub. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lennard-Jones potential. I have verified that this redirect target includes the important references and content in this article.
(Just FYI, this AfD process is a Big Deal on Wikipedia and it pulls in folks from across Wikipedia. To clean up these kinds of extraneous leaf pages, merge is much better option. Check that the leaf content and significant references are in target then propose a redirect via the Talk page for the project, in this case Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry. If you don't get push back after a week, apply the redirect.) Johnjbarton (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lennard-Jones potential it is the better option that I think MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect. The Lennard-Jones potential article is long and could plausibly be split into shorter articles on subtopics, but this duplicate article doesn't really help in that regard, as it is not more substantial than Lennard-Jones potential § Properties of the Lennard-Jones fluid. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems in general possible to split the "Lennard-Jones potential" article.
    Yet, it would not be obvious how. The only option that I could see would be to make a split to "Lennard-Jones potential" and "Lennard-Jones substance", i.e. the (theoretical) substance described by the Lennard-Jones potential. However, several aspects would need to be discussed equally in both articles.
    I think it is best to keep it as a single concise article. TimeStep89 (talk) 21:12, 12 July 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 Siberia (disambiguation). Liz Read! Talk! 13:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siberya (song)

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

Not notable. Patriotic and ethnic songs of this kind usually require from what I've seen some academic coverage. But both sources here are YouTube links. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ulipur.com

Ulipur.com (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)

Speedy was declined once. No credible claim of notability or importance. The references are relatively weak and fail to establish notability. A news portal in a small administrative unit below that of a district in rural Bangladesh. No coverage in reliable, independent sources, needed to establish notability. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Bangladesh. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ulipur.com is an online news portal of Kurigram district, Bangladesh. It is most popular and first govt verified online news site of Rangpur division. We know the name of ulipur (location) is a local but the news portal is much popular by viewers. The ulipur.com page has sufficient documents here. I hope include five references (Bengali & English also) are enough for now. Please help keep the page active and you can check all referrals link, also documents. Mr.RezaRahman (talk) 12:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.RezaRahman You didn't get the point. It's fails WP:GNG. There are more than 3-thousand newspapers verified by government in Bangladesh. but only 35 is passed WP:GNG. you can check the list here. ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 (inbox - contribs) 19:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than 3-thousand verified newspapers/portals in Bangladesh, this is totally false information. You are enmity with us. You don't want to be verified by ulipur.com wikipedia. Moreover, this website is very popular and healthy web portal in this Divisional zone. Why are you doing this? Mr.RezaRahman (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.RezaRahman First of all, try to understand that proposal for deletion is not a personal attak. Secondly, The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting itself gave the account of 3220 newspapers, I did not. Third, this verification is not the same thing as meeting the terms of Wikipedia's notability policy. I want you to contribute more to Wikipedia and try to understand Wikipedia policies. I am not your opponent by any means. And if Ulipur.com meets any of these criteria, you can tell me; Maybe I can also contribute to improve this article. ‍~ 𝕂𝕒𝕡𝕦𝕕𝕒𝕟 ℙ𝕒ş𝕒 (inbox - contribs) 07:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Persona 2: Innocent Sin#Setting and characters. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tatsuya Suou

Tatsuya Suou (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)

Right now, the reception section content are all trivial. WP:BEFORE shows zero WP:SIGCOV, including scholarly sources sadly. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:09, 12 July 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! 06:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Knowlarity

Knowlarity (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)

Advertisement Sario528 (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Article has links to reliable publications with non-trivial coverage. However, it does read like an advertisement and the puffery needs to be taken down several notches. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides probably being written by the marketing company Candid marketing, I don't see any coverage that could possibly support the writing of an encyclopedic article. The Khaleej Times article fails ORGIND, Techstory is a blatant ad, and it's unclear they have an editorial process, the Indian Express article, besides falling under INHERITORG, does not cover the software in depth. Not sure if it's based on the same IANS news release that was in this Economic Times article, which seems to be a permanent deadlink but I believe should have the same content as the (google cached) Deccan Herald article here, but neither is compliant to current standards. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 11:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not the most helpful of nominations, I must note. However, clearly WP:SERIESA stuff here, fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP with a LOT of company statement derived material in sources. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:32, 12 July 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 Another Code: Two Memories. Liz Read! Talk! 13:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Mizuki Robbins

Ashley Mizuki Robbins (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)

A minor character that has received nothing, failing WP:SIGCOV. Entire reception section contains mostly a passing mentions from the game reviews. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tintin home video releases

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

WP:NOTCATALOGUE, poorly sourced (all from a single website, links don't work) fancruft Ajf773 (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete catalog cruft Dronebogus (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raizy Fried

Raizy Fried (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)

As an author, the subject is self-published and not notable. As an entrepreneur, likewise we are absent notability. No independent sources (tagged as such) presented and no evidence we pass WP:GNG, including during WP:BEFORE. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the best I can find, and it's not enough for notability. [42] Oaktree b (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North American Competitiveness Council

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

Delete or merge into Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Non-notable sub-working group of a larger multi-lateral forum that met a couple times between 2006 and 2009. No WP:SIGCOV that would help the article qualify for WP:ORG. Longhornsg (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge seems ok, it's a subgroup of the larger group. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 12 July 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 Withdrawn by nominator‎. AfD withdrawn, article moved to draftspace at author's request. Sole delete vote was an SPA. (non-admin closure) Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Destiny Navaira

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:SINGER; WP:MUSICBIO - sourcing to hyper-local media (mostly Tejano Nation) and no evidence of any sustained record of success, acclaim or other notability. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Got it, I wasn't sure which is why I didn't create the article outright. I'd actually prefer it to be redirected to a sandbox rather than to be deleted so that I have a starter draft to work on if, or when, she becomes more relevant. – jona ✉ 14:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are no votes on this AfD, so if you like I can withdraw it and send the article to draft? The only thing is, you'll need to edit it every 6 months to stop it being deleted, but if that works for you it would seem elegant to me! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be a fan page sourced mostly by websites. 128.252.154.9 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Apparently, we are waiting for the page creator to say they are okay with draftification so the nominator will withdraw this deletion proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AJona1992 Do you want us to move this article to your sandbox so that we can close this discussion now? Okoslavia (talk) 05:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per the creator. Good faith attempts by experienced user. Okoslavia (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, can we close this and draftify the article even though there's a 'delete' vote now? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb that delete vote is by Single purpose IP. Okoslavia (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right at that. Liz is right, too, I was waiting on @AJona1992. Happy to withdraw and anyone can close/draftify. Not comfortable closing it myself, not entirely sure that's appropriate... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response, yes please send it to the draft space. Thanks – jona ✉ 15:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Neiman

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

There is no evidence of notability here or with BEFORE - tagged for notability since May, the article has seen no improvement and its subject does not pass WP:GNG. WP:BUSINESSPERSON: "Corporate presidents, chief executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable." Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article subject does not appear to be not substantively covered in reliable sources and doesn't satisfy notability criteria for creative professionals. Enervation (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article which hopefully will be well-sourced soon. Liz Read! Talk! 06:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of conflicts in Iraq

List of conflicts in Iraq (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)

Absolutely no sources. Individual conflicts can easily be covered separately. Fails WP:NLIST. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I created List of conflicts in Iraq because List of conflicts in Asia and List of conflicts in the Near East were already getting to be too long. List of wars involving Iraq would seem to be primarily about modern wars that Iraq was part of, such as those over Israel. SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 05:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also worked extensively on List of conflicts in Egypt and List of conflicts in Mexico in a similar manner. SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 05:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Not a valid argument. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. Do as you will. SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Given the author's acceptance, along with the nominator's valid reasoning, a speedy delete seems appropriate. Conyo14 (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, and Iraq. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is 2 days old (previously was redirect), so WP:BEFORE.C.2 definitely applies. Note that every conflict on the list is wikilinked, so sourcing should be no problem. Creator's rationale for splitting out from a larger list is entirely reasonable. If a discussion needs to be had about whether or not it should be split, AFD is not the place for that. I'd request a withdrawal and speedy keep of the AFD for that reason. —siroχo 10:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Lists of wars by country shows this is rather common. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not just a collection of popular culture. This is a valid information list. Dream Focus 22:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of wars involving Iraq. We have lists of wars by countries involved, not by location. This is an obvious outlier that seems like it would confuse people. Dronebogus (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we have two different sets of articles related to conflicts by country; for example, these two: List of wars involving Egypt and List of conflicts in Egypt. SomeGuyWhoRandomlyEdits (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The “wars by place” category seems poorly populated and could easily be deprecated and merged. Dronebogus (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: "List of conflicts in ..." is a common type of article that is almost always likely to be notable. WP:NLIST says There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y"), so I don't agree with the nominator that it fails NLIST. This page appears capable of being a valuable information source. ––FormalDude (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because there is no reason to not have a list of wars in this country. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would be better if all those "list of conflict..." articles are nominated. Lorstaking (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Completely disagree that this can't be sourced; a known nation with consistent conflicts and a massive WP:BEFORE failure. The list is notable. Nate • (chatter) 23:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems fine from an NLIST standpoint, simply as a notable list topic. Any history of Iraq is going to have extensive discussion of the various wars there, even if it doesn't cover all of them. The list doesn't raise any obvious WP:NOT or maintainability issues, and nobody has suggested any. TBH I'm a little hazy on why this was nominated. -- Visviva (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of wars involving Iraq. The content on the page isn't coherently presented and can be merged to resemble what appears in List of wars involving Iran, to give it a more appealing presentation. ElderZamzam (talk) 11:11, 16 July 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 Bloom County#Other characters. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 06:15, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in Bloom County

Minor characters in Bloom County (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)

Plot summary that fails WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. We don't even have list of characters in Bloom County. I suggest redirect, maybe a slight merge to Bloom_County#Other_characters. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:14, 12 July 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! 06:11, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation

Minor characters in CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (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 fails WP:NLIST. Delete or merge to List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters (but 99% of this is unreferenced). WP:FANCRUFT plot summary in list form... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:09, 12 July 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! 08:02, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Richard Sheaffer

John Richard Sheaffer (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 seems suspiciously promotional, and has had no good sources for the fifteen+ years that it has existed. Created by an SPA, also. BD2412 T 02:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems some promising sigcov here via the EPA, I'm almost sure this is the same person despite the (common) spelling error: "Land Disposal of Wastewater: A Land Use Case Study" [43][44]
  • Here's some barely readable coverage that seems to cover some principles as well as citing a statement to a subcommittee [45]
  • Seems to be some traction on subject's book [46] 14 citations is pretty high for a 1983 work.
  • This seems to demonstrate subject's published participation in a conference, which may lead to futher citations, probably need a proper citation index for that [47]
—siroχo 03:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think, he's used as the intro to an editorial in the journal Groundwater [48], got an obituary in the Chicago Tribune[49] and attention from the Washington Post[50]. The article isn't great, it needs cleaning up, but I think the man has made sufficient impact to be included. Elemimele (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Some more evidence for WP:ACADEMIC: "Encouraging wise use of floodplains with market-based incentives" has 19 citations, "Cities under water: A comparative evaluation of ten cities' efforts to manage floodplain land use" has seemingly over 100. —siroχo 08:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per sources provided by Elemimele and siroxo. Probably passes NACADEMIC too, but I think we're fine with WP:NBASIC here. We've got a staff-written obit in the Chicago Trib, a full-length profile in the Washington Post, and via the excruciating NEPIS interface we also have this EPA report containing several pages on his wastewater disposal innovations (and others as linked above). All of these appear to be reliable, independent of the subject and to meet the WP:SIGCOV requirement of address[ing] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. -- Visviva (talk) 02:09, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the digging, researching and 'splaining by others above. I didn't even have to dig up any refs myself this time -- just opine on others' fine work.
--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. I'm closing this as Keep given editor comments and the nominator's withdrawal of their nomination. Further discussion regarding a possible Merge can occur on the article talk page or that of the target article. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Amber

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

After going through the sources readily, several either barely discussed the subject or only glancingly, while while the largest source discussing her character is clearly not reliable (while PopMatters may be, the author lists no credentials, is using a pen name, and another major article for the website is citing blockchain to Norse Mythology?). There aren't sources that appear to discuss the character outside of the scope of the games itself, or even the story for the first game as much. She's more a plot device than a fleshed out character, and what is there is failing SIGCOV. WP:BEFORE turned up much of the same, Rachel just doesn't seem to be independently notable. Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it is not clear to me that PopMatters is non-RS. Can you point to a discussion where this consensus has been reached? I don't see anything on RSN. Jclemens (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying PopMatters isn't reliable, I'm arguing the author of that article isn't a reliable source for the reasons given. It's a site that encourages submissions without payment and the individual authors of those submissions should be considered accordingly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PopMatters is considered reliable per WP:RSMUSIC. They're a major publication in the music world. I didn't think they did much in the video game works though. Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They were actively publishing in the vg topic space at one point, like between 10 to 12 years ago. I found some useful material about vg topics. Haleth (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Odin famously traded his eye for the secrets of blockchain. Dronebogus (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm a bit torn because while I do largely agree with the nominator's assessment of the article, this article did go through an AFD less than a year ago that resulted in an uncontroversial Keep consensus. I feel there should have at least been some attempt to bring up these concerns on the Talk page of the article to discuss a possible Merger before bringing it back to AFD within such a relatively short time after it was already Kept at AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the 1st afd lacks more participants and was maybe thoughtless closed. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I considered a merge proposal, but given how the previous AfD went felt it may trainwreck without a more organized discussion. Not to mention there seems to be an ongoing problem with those discussions being actually closed.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, believe me, I am very sympathetic to the fact that Merge proposals on Talk pages very often have little participation and often go ages without a closure, which is why I usually don't bring this up in AFD discussions where merging or redirecting is the obvious correct option. Its just the fact that this particular article had a very recent AFD in which no one in it actually advocated deletion which kind of gives a bad look to the process. But, that's just my two cents - as I said, I actually do agree with the nomination, and would support a merge. Rorshacma (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Article could only come up with is a short paragraph about LGBT representation in Life is Strange and not specifically about Rachel. Also, there is zero developmental info specifically about the character from a real world perspective, and a WP:BEFORE search does not turn up any better. Not to mention the WP:REFBOMBING of the article so it'll be like "Wow there are so many sources, this has to be notable". GreenishPickle! (🔔) 23:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a super expert on it, but am I wrong in believing this character is this franchise's example of Dead lesbian syndrome? Jclemens (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Greenish Pickle!: Did you mean developmental info as in "that was the thought process of the developers for the development this character"? This and this have bits on that, not a lot but more than zero; this has the side of the voice actress. Daranios (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely dead lesbian syndrome. She did spend most of the relevant games' runtime being...dead in-universe. Haleth (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, yeah, I did participate in the last AfD. I thought it looked familiar. Keep per my reasoning then. And can we agree that deletion is off the table, and this is really a discussion substantially constrained to whether the character article should be kept standalone, or merged to the various installments in which she appears? Jclemens (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, or a full on redirect. That said how exactly do you feel it meets notability in light of things here? Your statement in the previous AfD was that the "article improvements" showed coverage in reliable sources, but that's being contested here as anything sufficient.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the game's article - I think a lot of the sources being put forth are critiques of the story itself rather than the character or their actions. Notability is not inherited, so just because a story elicited controversy over treating a character poorly does not make the character immediately notable. I believe the previous AfD conflated these two things incorrectly. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I said last time, even after the removal of PopMatters we still have sourced, non-stubby article, which has a recepetion section to balance plot summary even if that is not very long. So WP:WHYN is fullfilled and I see no reason for merge or even deletion. I also wonder if really all secondary sources have been analysed in WP:BEFORE. E.g. PC Invasion has an interesting characterization for Amber having (or being seen as having) two sides, which has not yet been worked into the article, which (at least for Before the Storm) flies into the face of She's more a plot device than a fleshed out character. Procedurally I think this should have be a merge discussion rather than an AfD. Daranios (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the problem is it's still primarily a review of the game. Even by the reviewer's own admission the characterization here is up to the player's interpretation and not an analysis on their part as that's the case with all the game's characters. So maybe assume a bit of good faith as to why I said what I did.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, sorry about my phrasing. What I should have said was that I see more in the secondary sources than you described. Like, I believe it's a good thing to have a multi-faceted character (Game of Thrones anyone?) which allows to say more about them. WP:GNG also specifically says that the topic does not need to be the source's main topic in order to count as significant coverage. Daranios (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios Can you tell me which sources meet WP:SIGCOV here? I just scanned the titles so far, but those suggest the artices are about the game rather than the character. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Piotrus: The short answer, basically already present in my reply to Greenish Pickle!: The secondary sources collectively allow us to create a sourced, meaningful article which fullfills the requirement of WP:ALLPLOT and WP:WHYN, so as usual I personally am satisfied with that. Individually, I'd say "Life is Strange: Before the Storm broke our hearts in good and bad ways" has a significant amount to say on the character, both plot and commentary. I did not yet have time look into all secondary sources, but have already found that there was more in those I have looked at than was previously present in the article. Maybe I'll find time to look more next week. Daranios (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Daranios, I like your arguments as they have merit, and I personally believe that most if not all the out of universe information presented in the article should be preserved without question. However, I am indecisive as to whether the character's dead lesbian trope, as noted by Jclemens, should be refocused and covered within a dedicated reception section in the series article (since we have one now), or in a dedicated standalone article for the character as per status quo. Weak Keep if there is a consensus that there is nothing wrong with the status quo, but I am not opposed to a merge into the series article if and only if someone is willing to do up a proper section about the reception and analysis of her role as a plot device over the course of two games. Often people who advocate a merge or redirect simply will not bother with preserving adequately cited content, they just want that article gone from mainspace and such a position works as an adequate compromise per AfD guidelines. Haleth (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Haleth: I am not fundamentally opposed to a merge if there should be a majority who thinks the character analysis we have uncovered would be better presented within the context of the games'/series' articles. However I personally fall on the side of a stand-alone presentation being both feasible and preferable. And I do share the concern with regard to merges that really all relevant information is preserved (including the recent additions). Daranios (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer a merge myself, generally echoing Haleth, weak keep being second choice. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the other way. Weak keep as a preference at this stage, merge being a second choice. Haleth (talk) 11:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I don't think there's enough significant sources talking about the character outside of the games itself to work as a standalone article, and a lot of the commentary around the character is essentially commentary on the game's tropes itself versus Rachel. And I agree that the PopMatters article isn't reliable in this case; it's someone with a pseudonym, not a staff-bylined article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: My reasons for the keep !vote remains unchanged from last time. Daranios arguments are pretty convincing too. MoonJet (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the keep votes like the one above me would be counted as WP:NOTAVOTE "sources have to exist look at this one" which didn't say something. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 04:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that the keep opinions are NOT based any unproven assumption that sources have to exist somewhere, but rather existing sources are present and linked for everyone to see and check both in the article and the previous deletion discussion, which is the most basic argument when notability has been put in question. So keep statments here are argument-based, not votes. The content of the sources is such that we have "a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic" and more than "a few sentences", including a (now slightly expanded) decent-sized reception section. As that is the whole point why we have a notability requirement in the first place, I don't see why this article should be merged, much less deleted. Daranios (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't even replied to Piotrus' question. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So? Daranios (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a relevant set of sources for the topic. If Laura Palmer’s worth a page, this character is too. LingLass (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:TRIVIAL are both insufficient arguments. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You’re missing the main point. To elaborate on my first sentence: the most recent five articles listed are themselves enough to show the significance of this character in this world. My second line was partly meant to be amusing. But, the fact that this comparison to Twin Peaks' Laura Plamer is also richly elaborated on in sources that don’t count here (e.g.,in Tumblr lore), does not make the other print sources less worthy. LingLass (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Further secondary sources, where Rachel is not the main topic but which have non-trivial analysis of the character: "What's Past Is Prologue: Rewriting and Interfacing Shakespeare in Life Is Strange: Before the Storm", "Games of archiving queerly: artefact collection and defining queer romance in​ Gone Home and​ Life is Strange. Daranios (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And another scholarly source analyzing Rachel (and Chloe) in a way which surely is not trivial (and talks about aspects different from the trope in question): Der ästhetische Vektor, p. 172 bottom-173, 181 bottom-182. Pinging Piotrus. Daranios (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on the sources presented immediately above...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 01:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here’s the full citation of the second article that is archived above:
Drouin, R. A. (2019) ‘Games of archiving queerly: artefact collection and defining queer romance in Gone Home and Life is Strange', Alphaville: Journal of Film and Screen Media, 16, pp. 24-37. doi: 10.33178/alpha.16.02
Some relevant quotes that show the centering of Amber:
“The exigency of numerous characters in their devotion to the missing Rachel Amber, a queer girl, links trauma to the premise of the game. By the game’s conclusion, players find Rachel’s corpse and realise she has been kidnapped, murdered, and potentially raped, shattering Chloe. Rachel, as the subject of a queer trauma archive, possesses a dual role of spectre and centrepiece. Haunting the archive, she is voiceless; details about her come second hand, and there are limited artefacts to compose her history. Players cannot fully understand her sexuality without the biased influence of Chloe, who is in love with her, or the prequel game, Life Is Strange: Before the Storm. It is also queer Chloe who preserves Rachel’s memory and memorialises her.” (p. 31)
“Sexuality and gender are overt themes and concerns of both Life Is Strange and Gone Home. This undisguised attention to queer girls prevents audiences from misconstruing the representation either game offers.” p. 34
“Despite relying on the deaths of queer girls to chronicle, the Life Is Strange universe equally hinges upon female devotion, from Chloe’s attachment of Rachel to the healing relationship between Chloe and Max. Rhetoric and archival theory influence queer representation in gaming.” p 34.
LingLass (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to all merge opinions: After some expansions, which do not yet incorporate all secondary sources found, Rachel Amber currently has a longer Reception/analysis section than Max Caulfield or Chloe Price. I think incorporating these sourced parts into either the series' or the individual games' articles would be either akward or require a major restructuring, as none of these articles has a characters section yet. So do you believe a merge is really the most beneficial course of action at this point? Daranios (talk) 10:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess whether recent changes in expanding the article impact any editor's opinion on what should happen with this article. Also, I'd like to confirm where those advocating Merge want as a target article. Life Is Strange was referred to but there is no place on this article that is devoted to game characters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While there have been modifications to the article since this started, and I applaud those efforts...I still feel the sources even the new ones are looking at the story of the games and not her as an independently notable character outside of them. It's just not being demonstrated. I would almost suggest merging the respective bits of commentary to their corresponding titles, as nothing would be lost then.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources added by Daranios. I feel that there's a bit of goalpost-shifting with how "independently notable" is being construed by some participants here. We can certainly agree that simply being a character in a notable game does not by itself make the article subject notable. But that does not mean that the character can only be notable if they are covered outside of any connection to the game (which would be an impossible standard). Rather, it is simply necessary that the character be covered in independent reliable sources, etc., that address the character directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. That standard seems amply met by the sources here, many of which have extensive discussion of this character's story. And while it does seem like perhaps some sort of in-depth article on characters in Life is Strange might be a more optimal way of arranging this content, until someone gets around to doing that labor-intensive reorg, this article seems fine. -- Visviva (talk) 05:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per @Visviva. Okoslavia (talk) 10:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I like the point that you made about the goalpost-shifting. Haleth (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep, echoing @Visviva on goalpost-shifting for this type of fictional biography page, and on there being an ample number of independent reliable sources.LingLass (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw I feel like this has gone on excessively long, but I do agree with the above suggestion that a character article/"list" may be the better route to explore later. But there has been enough work on the article that it is in better shape now than it was which is at least an improvement, even with my notability concerns. Still I don't see a point in dragging this out further.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure you can't withdraw it with this many Opposes present. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    They can still announce their own withdrawal of their Delete !vote, but it won't warrant a speedy keep. Merko (talk) 10:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically only delete or redirect opinions preclude a speedy keep, and closes after relists are possible without citing a speedy criterion. Of course, that does depend on someone actually wanting to kick it over to the relevant article talk page and not wanting to wait 7 days. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:30, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge I've been watching this one, and I feel it has hit the threshold for WP:SIGCOV. Even if it's borderline, there is room for a merge discussion to make this topic area more organized. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep – It meets the notability criteria and is important for LGBTQ+ representation, and all of this information cannot be merged into the article and will be lost. At the very least it should be redirected so someone can recreate it in the future. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 07:48, 18 July 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! 08:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aldor

Aldor (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)

Only primary sources exist, which is not sufficient. Notability contested for a long time with no sign of notability likely to appear for defunct research project Ysangkok (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A quick WP:BEFORE style search for "Aldor" programming showed a number of books that have sections describing Aldor; I added three of them as general references to the article. GScholar, with hundreds of hits, shows that there are likely more independent sources. Given these, there are enough in depth, independent RS that this topic passes WP:GNG. Using these sources, a reasonable article could be developed. Hence keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and improve. The page doesn't look encyclopedic and the sources are not so clear. I suggest to draftify the article and then add more sources and rewrite the article in a more encyclopedic format and then subit for review. --Onetimememorial (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs development but that is unlikely to happen in draft space. WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources added by Mark Viking. ~Kvng (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of the newly added references would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Mark Viking. Just running through the three sources added to the article: [51] is a paper published in academic conference proceedings containing 9 lines (> 100 words) about the language as such and another 9 lines (> 100 words) about the Aldor compiler. [52] is a dedicated paper of several thousand words with extensive detail on Aldor by Erik Poll and Simon Thompson; [53] is another such paper by Thompson. (AFAICT authors Poll and Thompson, although they have both written extensively on Aldor, are not in any meaningful sense affiliated with it; here is a presentation by Poll explaining Aldor's history.) I think we're comfortably in GNG territory here; and if not, there's a lot more where these came from. -- Visviva (talk) 01:50, 14 July 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. Spartaz Humbug! 05:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rio Caraeff

Rio Caraeff (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)

Impressive career but I’m not seeing in depth coverage in reliable independent sources to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Music, and Entertainment. Mccapra (talk) 22:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this one might have a chance. There's this quote [54] and this [55], seems notable-adjacent. Oaktree b (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This coverage in the NY Times [56]. Most articles are typical, he did this, he did that etc. Not sure we have notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete for lack of sourcing. I can only find trivial mentions of the subject. Really tried on this one, just can't find enough for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:Sigcov. Appears to receive significant coverage in reliable sources. Maliner (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Hollywood Reporter isn't good enough, and the second one is an interview. Couldn't find more IRS. Suitskvarts (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - article is poor but subject has enough referencing coverage to establish notability. - Indefensible (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources recently added, which appear ample to demonstrate sigcov under WP:GNG. (I'm a bit unclear on the above objections to "he did this, he did that" coverage, which don't seem to have a policy basis, but in any event the material added by Indefensible should put the matter to rest.) -- Visviva (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of leaving, join company + plus an interview + non-rs x of y ref. Non-notable at this time. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 03:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to review newly added sources (but there seems to be one editor who has a COI here).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The poor attempt at WP:HEYMANN by the addition of simplistic routine coverage of person leaving the job, arriving at the job + a passing mention of being on a board of govenors. None of which is an indication of notability and non of it is in in-depth. scope_creepTalk 03:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A specific analysis of the references used both initially and since the AfD began would be very helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep sources currently provided clearly establish notability. Unclear on what the issue is with Caraeff's job changing -- as Visviva noted, that's unrelated to any policy. When he changed jobs, several publications took the opportunity to look at his career and the significance of his move. The result was substantial coverage. For once I didn't have to go looking for more refs. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is the page creation of a new and apparently undeclared paid editor User:Shadowaxe990 (here's one revision of their sandbox). The pagespace might be retitled as Resume of Rio Caraeff which I would assess as a list-class WP:BLP. If I sound flippant it's because this is a list of press releases and overblown bare mentions assembled almost entirely with commas and "best of" lists of dubious worth. I see not a single citation which I could arguably classify as meeting significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I'll assess sources (as of this datestamp): cites 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 are entirely resume/hr-related, routine business news; 3 and 6 are interviews. #8 is his appearance in Vanity Fair's 2010 "not quite in the top 100" top 43 list, #9 is another honorable mention (not in THR's 2012 top 50, but...), #10 he ranks 32nd in Fortune's 2009 40 under 40, #11 he's one of Fast Company's 2014 top 1000 most creative people in business (look at the list of 1000 alphabetized links), and finally Evening Standard's 2011 top 1000 Pop & Rock list. This is a list of list appearances and not the top-flight ones either. No offense to the subject who should really find himself a better undeclared paid editor. BusterD (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or draftify He's almost there on GNG, but most sources in the article don't count towards GNG per BusterD's analysis, and regardless this is a CV masquerading as an encyclopedia article. SportingFlyer T·C 21:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Personal attacks on the article creator aside, I am not seeing any citations to any policy or guideline that would justify excluding these cites as entirely resume/hr-related, routine business news: [57], [58], [59], [60]. All of these are articles that are entirely about the article subject, which is substantially more than required under WP:SIGCOV. And unless there is some issue that hasn't been put forth here, Vox/Recode, Variety, and the Hollywood Reporter are all reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Accordingly, all of these appear to meet the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I get the desire to purge content that comes from seemingly impure origins, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, not a monument to our personal discernment or high standards. -- Visviva (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "I get the desire to purge content that comes from seemingly impure origins, but we are here to build an encyclopedia, not a monument to our personal discernment or high standards."
    Memorable line! It needs a shortcut: WP:NOTMONUMENT? A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree with you if those articles weren't clearly press release regurgitations. SportingFlyer T·C 11:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Articles about a company hiring or releasing a subject from employment based on (fully quoted) memos or other such press releases (with extended quotes) cannot be reasonably considered substantial, independent, or significant journalistic coverage about an executive. When a big company hires an executive leader, human resources put out a press release. They would have done the same for ANY individual they hired for the position. Such articles are what the company wants said about them, much like an interview. Such reporting is more about the position and less about the individual. The press release is a function of corporate public relations and reporting of such a press release is NOT investigative journalism, it's considered WP:ROUTINE business news. BusterD (talk) 10:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete purely on WP:NOTPROMO and not-CV gounds. Come on, it doesn't even attempt to hide that it's a CV. Citation to policy... let's call it WP:DELREASON#4 (or just WP:NOT). Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 01:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most followed media on TV Time

List of most followed media on TV Time (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)

Indiscriminate list of information with no sources outside of the website itself. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Internet. Why? I Ask (talk) 01:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If TV Time (which is pretty much a churnalism article in itself) wants to host its most popular show list, I suggest they do it on their own website. Also its parent company Whip Media had its article posted pay-for-play on here. Nate • (chatter) 02:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not apparently a notable list, as there are no sources other than TV Time itself that would indicate that any other reliable sources take an interest in which media are the most followed on TV Time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research and WP:NOTIINFO. No context as to what the increase/decrease columns actually relate to. This is clearly a stats project for TVTime, not Wikipedia. Ajf773 (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Horse Creek, Wyoming

Horse Creek, Wyoming (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)

All topos and aerials show a couple of buildings a little ways from the railroad, but I couldn't find evidence of anything town-like except for the zip code. And about that: if you search by town name, it does indeed give that zip code, but then says, "This ZIP Code™ used for a specific PO BOX". I couldn't find an explanation of this, but it suggests that the now-single-property picks up its mail somewhere else. I'm not seeing the GEO-notability. Mangoe (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that there are a lot of things named "Horse Creek" around, including multiple creeks. Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a tiny community, but it's a community, and it got newspaper coverage in 1989 when a couple from North Carolina bought the entire town: see [61], [62], and [63]. This article seems to explain the post office situation; apparently the physical post office was closed in the early 2010s because of an emergency operational issue. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 15:41, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Wyoming. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See WP:GEOLAND for example. Even if it's just a single property now, it wasn't in the past; it was a real community, and notability isn't temporary, or we might delete articles on no-longer-extant entities like Roman Empire and Soviet Union. Nyttend (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GEOLAND with the previous sources above. SportingFlyer T·C 21:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there are sources such as the ones cited above that indicate that the article passes WP:GEOLAND. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 12:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per sources above and WP:GAZ. Can't find many more substantial sources on Newspapers.com, but it certainly existed as a small community in decades past. AviationFreak💬 05:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Villanueva

Matthew Villanueva (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)

Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. I found this and this, which is not enough. JTtheOG (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found in any sports site, this was all I could find and not in a RS [64] Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'''Delete''' I agree, there is not much secondary coverage, [https://www.proboxing-fans.com/rico-ramos-defeats-efrain-esquivias-full-results-photos_062412/]. It would be nice if there was something on a mainstream news site. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:55, 12 July 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! 08:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bitget

Bitget (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)

Routine coverage, fails WP:NCORP. US-Verified (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - made of press releases and passing mentions - David Gerard (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - yes, there are a lot of press releases cited but I see enough less sketchy sources to meet notability requirements: [65], [66], [67]. ~Kvng (talk) 00:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Vanguard Nigeria's article is without a byline, so it is likely a press release/brand post. National Post's article is about an event, not about the company. We need more than routine coverage. US-Verified (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what we call a WP:REFBOMB. It was almost all press releases and press release reprints - these fail WP:NCORP. I've just cut the article back to what might plausibly be actual news coverage - David Gerard (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Above I have pulled out the WP:THREE strongest sources and I beleive notability requirements are met by these. The WP:REFBOMB crap can be deleted but the presence of this crap is not a valid reason to delete. Improve, don't delete crappy articles on notable subjects. WP:DEMOLISH, WP:NOTCLEANUP. ~Kvng (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that getting kicked out of Singapore rates a Wikipedia article by WP:NCORP or WP:GNG - David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like you're trying to apply WP:1E to an organization. Can we do that? What part of WP:NCORP is not being met here? ~Kvng (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a review of whether Kvng's three sources are sufficient to establish GNG would help bring this discussion to closure. Thanks for clearing out the crap.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Nothing in the article meets GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. Looking at the THREE sources mentioned above:
  • This is in the Washington Post is about the suspension of the company's exchange following a "scandal". A slightly longer article in the National News reports the same facts with additional comments from chief market strategist at Century Financial in Dubai. They're just a sample of two reports, but many more exist all reporting the same facts. But none provide any in-depth "Independent Content" about the *company*, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
  • This in Vanguard is simply regurgitated PR, fails ORGIND.
None of the THREE meet GNG/NCORP criteria and I am unable to locate anything that does. HighKing++ 16:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Changing my !vote above. The sources I identified are not making the cut per analysis by HighKing and David Gerard. Thanks for that. ~Kvng (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frederic Scheer

AfDs for this article:
Frederic Scheer (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 entrepreneur and inventor. Routine mentions/coverage, fails WP:GNG. US-Verified (talk) 00:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. By provided sources does not meet GNG or WP:BIO. Also citations in this article are somewhat deceptive, frequently citing corporate homepages inline. —siroχo 05:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table: prepared by User:siroxo
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
moneyshow No by subject ? ? ✘ No
L6NRG No subject's company No ~ ✘ No
patents.justia.com No primary (patents) Yes No ✘ No
InvestorsHub, advfn ? No UGC forum ? ✘ No
BPI No subject's org No ? ✘ No
owler ? No crowdsourcing & polling involved No ✘ No
PRINT magazine No coverage is just a quote ? No ✘ No
ZDNET No largely interview Yes No not about subject ✘ No
phys.org No largely interview Yes No not about subject ✘ No
microgrid knowledge, "Cutting fossil fuel use with bioplastics" No mostly an attributed statement ~ No does not seem to be about subject ✘ No
LA Times Yes Yes ~ routine near-trivial mention ~ Partial
LandGate.com ? ? No no mention, also what is this source meant to provide ✘ No
PRWeb "L6NRG announces..." No PRweb No PRweb No ✘ No
Alercell No another of subject's companies used as a source No No ✘ No
markets.businessinsider.com No PRESS RELEASE PR Newswire ~ No ✘ No
https://scheerfoundation.info/ No another of subject's companies used a a source No No ✘ No
AccessWire No "The Scheer Foundation announced today ..." No ? ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this article is not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thank you for the source analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps redirect to Allercel. I can only find press releases about the company. Nothing individual for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 12 July 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 Yat. Liz Read! Talk! 00:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yat with acute

Yat with acute (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)

Cyrillic letters marked with the acute accent for syllabic stress (as used in dictionaries and readers) are not distinct letters or “stressed variants” of letters. The articles about them are not notable subjects meeting WP:GNG, but merely the cross-section of the subject of the respective base letter (Yat) with Acute accent or Stress (linguistics).

See the previous deletion discussion regarding nine articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic).  —Michael Z. 17:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ye with grave.  —Michael Z. 20:35, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:17, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - note that in the previous AfD mentioned above, there was not just minimal discussion, there was nothing there other than the nom's statements. I'm not sure we can continue soft deleting related pages without input from other editors with experience in these topics (which isn't me, to be clear). JMWt (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ETA: this one which soft deleted 9 pages Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic) JMWt (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What is “soft deletion”? This proposal is for deletion.
    There was nothing wrong with the previous deletion, but please let me know if you actually find a real problem. The proposed deletion was posted at the top of all of the articles. It was posted in article alerts for three WikiProjects.[68][69][70] It was posted in appropriate deletion logs.[71][72][73][74] An article creator was notified.[75]  —Michael Z. 21:23, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, look at WP:SOFTDELETE. It's used in situations where there has been low participation in a discussion and no Keep votes. The article is treated as if it is a Proposed deletion and can be restored upon request at WP:REFUND. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic) for an example of where Soft Deletion was used. Liz Read! Talk! 04:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. JMWt seemed to be arguing against soft deletion due to low participation, so I don’t understand their intent.  —Michael Z. 05:47, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You previously stated "See the previous deletion discussion regarding nine articles at.."
I was simply stating that there is nothing to see when nobody else contributed to the discussion.
As I said, it is very hard for me to make a comment on this AfD and it seems almost nobody else can either. In which case soft deletion seems like a mistake to me. I think we need more input for even soft delete beyond a single editor making statements that the rest of us are unable to parse. JMWt (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or what you refuse to see is that editors view this as an uncontroversial deletion of material that’s all already in other articles where it belongs. Your argument is “I don’t understand this but I am suspicious of you.” If you can’t assume good faith then go ahead and find additional knowledgeable editors to comment before this discussion closes, or do some research and find some sources, but casting your unfounded doubts here is not helpful.  —Michael Z. 15:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the whole point of soft deletion seems to be this situation which you say it’s not acceptable for. If you don’t like the guidelines, then go change them instead of trying to bypass them in this discussion. I am not doing anything wrong, and your line is potentially disruptive.  —Michael Z. 15:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to yat - Is there a problem with a redirect here? Also, is the problem you describe something effecting Yat with diaeresis as well? Suriname0 (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: yat with diaeresis, from the image it is clear that the diaeresis was used as a substitute where the grave accent wouldn’t fit over the tall letter when setting metal type, in that one dictionary. Was that a convention, no idea, since that article is un-referenced. I would propose deleting it too.  —Michael Z. 03:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to yat, considering it is a variation of the letter. If other articles are added here, I also consider redirecting those to their respective pages. Persent101 (talk) 23:32, 14 July 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. "Keep" !votes failed to adequately address the notability concerns. ✗plicit 00:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

B. Syed Mohammed Yasin

B. Syed Mohammed Yasin (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 police officer. Has held multiple roles during his tenure at IPS, but all of them are run-of-the-mill posts held by all IPS officers and nothing at the highest levels of the bureaucracy which may have earned him notability. Is mainly notable for a faux pas when he was unable to identify a state minister. Fails WP:GNG, adequate references not seen and is mainly created and edited by a single-purpose editor. Jupitus Smart 13:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police, India, Andhra Pradesh, and Kerala. Jupitus Smart 13:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Terrible article, but he did hold the highest possible rank in the Indian Police Service. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He holds distrit's highest rank not national's highest rank. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 15:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Director-General is the highest possible rank in the IPS, which is clearly what I said. I said "rank", not "post". Just as an army officer can hold the rank of general and not be head of his nation's army. But we'd still write an article about him because of his rank, because reaching that rank is a clear indication of notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:37, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    DGP is the highest rank in the state, but is not holder of the highest position. Holding the highest rank does not make them automatically notable, though holding the highest post which is the chief of police staff in the state may do so. Per this list, there are 5 DGPs and 15 ADGPs in the state [76] and Kerala is among the smaller states, and most of the 3200 IPS officers stand a good chance of retiring as an ADGP or DGP. Besides there are not enough references to indicate WP:N is met. Jupitus Smart 12:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not seeing notability, I can't find extensive mentions of him, only confirmation that he exists. Kudos on the bicycle photo though. Oaktree b (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per the discussion above, there is no presumed notability. Per Oaktree b and my own searches, cannot find sufficient information for an article under WP:BASIC. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep but clean up is needed. Looks like an advertisement. Okoslavia (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:16, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom does not meet notability guidelines.Divesome (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_July_12&oldid=1166291752"