Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 July 15

< July 14 July 16 >

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. ✗plicit 23:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pierralit Tovonay

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

One appearance for the Madagascar national football team four years ago. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 23:56, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miniloft

Miniloft (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 hotel without any media coverage. Created in 2012 by an account whose only edit is this article. Likely promotional, only references are a link that goes nowhere and the hotel's own website. Fritzmann (message me) 22:55, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, even though my knee-jerk reaction was non-notability. The architectural nominations alone would clear WP:N... if someone can source them, please? Last1in (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per sources currently cited. I am annoyed by the tendency of what look like good sources to turn out to be 404s or moribund Flash sites, and I suspect but cannot verify that the Berliner Architekturpreis was an honorable mention (Auszeichnung) rather than a prizewinning finish. But the important thing is that it seems like we have enough to build a reasonable article from, satisfying the GNG. Of course there is still the matter of sorting out the subject matter. FWIW I understand Frizz23 to be the same as Miniloft Kreuzberg (so to speak the "third" Miniloft building, after Slender and Bender in Mitte). That raises some questions in my mind whether all three of these buildings really represent enough of a cohesive thing that we should be dealing with them in the same article, but I suppose there's no particular harm in starting out that way and splitting if sources become sufficiently numerous. -- Visviva (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has the tragic problem of probably being architecturally notable, but sourced primarily with hotel reviews. There's only one GNG qualifying source in the article itself, and the article only alludes to more. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 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 speedy delete‎ per WP:CSD#G5. ✗plicit 00:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ada Khan

Ada Khan (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:NACTOR and WP:GNG C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 12:37, 8 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! 23:09, 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 no consensus‎ on the articles nominated here, but there is a consensus amongst many participants that this nomination was a WP:TRAINWRECK and never going to yield a workable result. Individual AfD discussions for some of the nominated articles are likely warranted, and it has been suggested that other matters be discussed at more appropriate venues like WP:ANI. Relisting of this discussion is highly unlikely to result in a clearer outcome or consensus on the bundle of articles that were nominated. Liz suggested a procedural close during an earlier relist, but decided against that due to the editor resources involved in the discussion; regarding that, I would suggest that relevant discussion and analysis from this discussion be referred to in any AfDs on the individual articles that might be opened later. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Salyan

Battle of Salyan (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 a single neutral source or source from a credible publisher or website for this article, plus violation of WP:GS/AA – articles created by non-extended confirmed user. I am also nominating the following related pages because of same reasons, to enforce WP:GS/AA among other issues such as:

  • Battle of Karamaryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – Cannot be attributed to reliable sources. Not a single neutral source or source from a credible publisher or website.
  • Battle of Chapakchur (1916) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – Cannot be attributed to reliable sources. No neutral source or source from credible publisher or website, with the exception of Gawrych, who does not mention the result or even dedicate more than two sentences to the subject.
  • Battle of Muş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – The subject is notable enough to have its own article, however the Turkish sources that make up most of the article are contradicted by neutral sources. The town was recaptured by Russia on August 24.[1][2] Also, "Muş" is an anachronism, it should be Mush. Given these massive issues, the best course of action would be WP:TNT. Article is poorly cited and even has an incorrect name, but can still be salvaged.
  • Bitlis offensive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – Similar to the above Mush article, this article is only a partial version of a battle the Russians had actually won, with the full version Battle of Bitlis already existing and having 8 sources that Russia ultimately won. The two sources for Mush also confirm this. Article is only a partial copy of already existing Battle of Bitlis, would be preferable to merge.
  • Battle of Erzurum (1918) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – Cannot be attributed to reliable sources. This is an evacuation, not a battle. I have looked over the "The Struggle for Transcaucasia" source carefully for the Kazemzadeh quote (which has no page number) that "that the Armenians, known for their brutal tactics against civilian populations, proved to be poor warriors when confronted with a genuine war". This is not anywhere in Kazemzadeh's book, which damages the credibility of the Mustafayev source. Mustafayev does admit the city was abandoned with "minimal resistance", and Minassian writes the city was evacuated beforehand. Thus, I do not believe "Battle" is the correct term for this event. None of the text describes a battle.
  • Capture of Erzincan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – Cannot be attributed to reliable sources. Similar to Erzurum, the sources describe an evacuation instead of a battle.
  • Capture of Trabzon (1918) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – WP:GS/AA
  • Massacre in Bashlybel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – Cannot be attributed to reliable sources. No neutral or reliable sources in the Massacre section for the actual massacre. Only sources actually describing massacre are "azertag.az" or "Armiya.Az". The UN doc was submitted by "Permanent Representative of Azerbaijan to the United Nations", it is not actually claimed by the UN.
  • Terter operation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – WP:GS/AA Although article is currently in a miserable state, including using multiple urls to the Russian Wikipedia that do not work, the article is based on an existing event.
  • Battle of Lachin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – WP:GS/AA
  • Mardakert offensive (July 1992) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – WP:GS/AA Like Bitlis, this is a partial version of article that already exists, Mardakert and Martuni Offensives, and should be merged with it.

- Kevo327 (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's see, this person is trying to discredit me, because he supports Armenia 100% and there is no fault in that, no his bad liver makes him want to delete all my articles for unknown reasons, you can just look at his profile he describes himself as a supporter of Armenia, if you want to debate the objectivity of my article you can, but indeed because you support Armenia and I think you are an Armenian from Levant, I can not continue this, the battle of Salyan is in the historical documents described by the Turkish government, and even present in the national encyclopedia of Azerbaijan, you would therefore tell me that it is not reliable as a source, but look at your articles on the battle of Halizdor and you will see that you are doing articles without any real sources, using the argument that I am not a verified member will not change anything, and your attempt to delete because it is not not accommodating to your community is ridiculous. Movaigonel (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, this only concerns edits as said here "Extended confirmed restriction: only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions:", in itself you have no reason to delete my articles, it contains reliable and considerate sources of schools, you can check them all, in itself you have no good argument. Movaigonel (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You say that my sources are not reliable, are you serious in your words two seconds? I have sources from Cambridge University press and it is not reliable? Your argument doesn't hold water. Movaigonel (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles are indeed lacking WP:RS, and most importantly, what do you think publishing entire articles related to Armenia/Azerbaijan is? It's a form of editing, and in this case, editing by non-ECP users hence violation of WP:GS/AA. - Kevo327 (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's continue in your logic, I do not publish only on Armenia - Azerbaijan, because as far as I know the Ottoman Empire is not an Azerbaijani empire, right? Once again, my sources are correct and most of them come directly from Armenians who lived through the 1915 genocide, all my pages have been reviewed at the moment, as far as I know, writing articles is not prohibited, and writing about turkic countries is not forbidden too, so swallow your rage and please stop deleting my work with an argument that makes no sense, if you want to argue the legitimacy of my articles you can do it and I will give you all the sources you need, for me this debate is closed, you do not accept as an Armenian to write articles that are not in favor of your country even when sometimes it includes Armenian sources , such as "Battle of Erzurum (1918)", but you don't do the same for Armenian articles which are not accessible and purely false when we check it, such as "Battle of Halizdor", "Syunik rebellion", "Battle of Mastara", and it doesn't cause you any problem because it suits your community, doesn't it? And again the last time you undo what I modified on the siege of Aintab, because it contained fraudulent information, no French sources claim that Andranik Ozanian was present in Cilicia, but you still have undo, lack of faith maybe ? Movaigonel (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you stop with the personal attacks, such behavior is not allowed on Wikipedia. Focus on content, not the contributor. Your created articles aren't just about Ottoman Empire, they mention various info about Armenia and Azerbaijan, including as belligerents, so articles such as these created by non-ECP editor are in violation of WP:GS/AA. - Kevo327 (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'm sorry if my words touched you,
but you see, we're going to see my articles to contradict the argument that it's about "Azerbaijan-Armenia"
  • Battle of Erzurum 1918: This includes the Ottoman empire and in no case azerbaijan, for the sources it comes from Minassian, Anahide Ter, An Armenian-French historian, in her book "1918-1920, the Republic of Armenia", she talks about the capture of Erzurum by Kazim Karabékir as said in this document: https://books.google.fr/books?id+=gQxjQCiEgFUC&dq=Erzincan+1918+kazim&pg=PA60&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
  • Capture of Erzincan: Again, it includes only the Ottoman Empire, and does not speak of any case of Azerbaijan, the information also comes from the same book quoted earlier.
  • Capture of Trabzon (1918), also does not include Azerbaijan, only the Ottoman Empire, the source is Sean McMeekin, in his book The Ottoman Endgame, he talks about the capture of Trabzon by the Ottomans: https://books.google.fr/+books?id=bfi1CAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PT424&dq=trabzon+vehip+1918&hl=fr&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=trabzon%20vehip%201918&f=false
  • Battle of Chapakchur (1916): It also includes that the ottoman empire not of Azerbaijan, source concerning George Walter Gawrych, speaking of Chapakchur : [3]
  • Battle of Muş: does not include Azerbaijan, includes the Ottoman Empire, source of Klaus Kreiser, from his book "Atatürk: Eine Biographie": [4]
  • Bitlis offensive: again not talking about Azerbaijan, only about the ottoman empire. source from Allen, William Edward David and Muratoff, Paul, and also source from Cambridge: https://books.google.fr/books?id=oDb6P0HXwIcC&dq=bitlis+kemal&pg=PA422&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=bitlis%20kemal&f=false
  • Battle of Salyan: Included the democratic republic of Azerbaijan certainly, but it was a coalition with the Ottoman empire, in addition it was against the commune of Baku, which is I believe not only Armenian but Bolshevik.
  • Battle of Karamaryan: Exactly for the battle of Salyan, against the municipality of baku, therefore Bolshevik but not Armenian.
  • Massacre in Bashlybel and Terter operation, Battle of Lachin. were not written by me.
  • Mardakert offensive (July 1992), the only point you are right, but in fact it does not change anything, the sources are all correct, and even include Armenian sources.
In conclusion 90% of the pages you want to delete have nothing to do with what you described, what I'm going to say is not against you, but I'm afraid you lose your objectivity due to the fact that you are Armenians, don't take what I said the wrong way but that's what I noticed. Good evening to you. Movaigonel (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User_talk:Movaigonel#July_2023 as explained, those are covered by WP:GS/AA. - Kevo327 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides 1TWO3Writer, just checked all my pages, so I would like this debate to be closed because it has no place to be, and that you stop trying to delete my pages. Movaigonel (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only checked for WP:CV per Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reports/Easy reviews#Unreviewed articles marked for AFD. Me marking them as reviewed does not mean they are notable. 1TWO3Writer (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of this articles are supported by RS and the content of the articles matches the references. Disruptive nom. Kges1901 (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've elaborated on the rationale of most of the articles, aside from the fact that these were created in violation of WP:GS/AA. Please take a closer look at the explanations. - Kevo327 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blocked Movaigonel for one week for the repeated violations of GS/AA. This AfD can continue, but given the number of pages involved and the nature of the deletion rationale, WP:AE or WP:ANI may have been a better forum of choice. signed, Rosguill talk 17:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep. I've never heard of an AfD being WP:TNT'ed, but this nomination is so problematic that TNT comes to mind. First of all, the nomination fails to state a valid deletion rationale for any of the nominated articles and in some cases states no deletion rationale at all. Second, each of these articles needs separate consideration. For instance, my !vote would be to WP:MERGE Mardakert offensive (July 1992) with the existing article Mardakert and Martuni Offensives. A quick WP:GOOGLECHECK suggests that there are enough reliable sources to establish notability but we don't need two articles on essentially the same subject. The other articles vary from being clearly notable, if poorly sourced, to being completely obscure. Fiachra10003 (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fiachra10003 I elaborated on the deletion reasons and crossed off the articles that could be improved or merged, now only articles that lack notability or reliable sources for their existence are listed. - Kevo327 (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Looking through the articles, it's apparent they were created in a restricted area by a user who isn't allowed to edit there. The additional problems highlighted by the nominator are concerning in their own regard. Vanezi (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all A WP:RS and WP:VER nightmare, who's gonna do the clean-up? Needs to be started from scratch. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this is a complicated bundled nomination with the nominator changing what they are requesting with several different articles. Participating editors should carefully review the nomination statement as Deletion is not being called for with all proposed articles. I'm almost tempted to do a procedural close so that these articles can be considered in individual or smaller bundled nominations but editors have invested time in this discussion so I will relist it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I can't see any way to provide useful input on such a large and complex bundled nom. I can see a case for bundled noms where we have a large number of cookie-cutter articles or a group of tightly related articles where the research involved in evaluating the nom would be substantially the same, but each of these articles requires a separate factual inquiry. Importantly, the WP:GS/AA violation is not a free-standing rationale for deletion, because as that page states: Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.-- Visviva (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Visviva I crossed some of the articles per Liz suggestion on my talk in order for it to be easier for voters and only left the most problematic ones. The ones left not only were created in violation of WP:GS/AA, but having several issues I highlight for each remaining article. Some are very problematic being just propaganda with no reliable sources confirming massacres like Massacre in Bashlybel.
    In general, I'd say the WP:ONUS is on the article creator to provide reliable sources, which they haven’t done for most of the articles, so deleting would be the best option. - Kevo327 (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Bearing in mind that most AFD participants are not experts in the military historiography of this region, can you explain why the sources currently cited e.g. in Battle of Salyan are not reliable? -- Visviva (talk) 05:14, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Visviva The participants would not need to be experts on military historiography, they would only need to be familiar with Anti-Armenian sentiment in Turkey and in Azerbaijan. If Turkish or Azerbaijani sources are making extraordinary claims about Armenian topics (in the case of Saylan, 'the small Turkic militia defeating the twenty-times larger Armenian-Russian-Iranian bad guys who also massacred civilians') that no neutral source mentions, then generally it does not belong on Wikipedia. The participants would also need to be aware that these are countries without academic integrity; all of their academic institutions are state-controlled and only promote nationalistic narratives even if that means rewriting history (see Kemalist historiography). The president of Turkey even claimed America was discovered by Turks.
    As for the specific sources on the Saylan article:
    The Yengin source is just a diary from over a century ago, not reliable per WP:PRIMARY.
    Güzel, Oğuz, and Karatay are genocide deniers. Page 483: "This is an important proof, demonstrating that Armenians were not subjected to genocide before and after the deportation."
    Güçlü is very apologetic to genocide denial and portrays it as a legitimate view, such as (Page 179) writing genocide deniers like Heath W. Lowry and Justin McCarthy "both dispute that the evidence supports a verdict of genocide" as opposed to "other historians...take a very different view". Also on Page 44: "Yet unlike the denial of the Holocaust that nourishes anti-Semitism, denial of the Armenian genocide is not part of a racist anti-Armenian ideology".
    The Altayli website is not a credible or established source, and includes articles denying genocide.
    I also found very little information about these writers, and suspect they would not pass Wikipedia:Notability (academics). - Kevo327 (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per HistoryofIran. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:04, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill Wreck the nom - This entire AfD proposal is so flawed as to be unworkable. I agree with Fiachra10003 that this is a poster child for WP:TNTing a nomination. Blow it up, created an AfD for each article, and discuss each one on the merits. As Rosguill points out below, there is a specific policy for this: WP:TRAINWRECK. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC) Last1in (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedutral Close this multipage AfD as malformed and consider each page separately. I look at the first two articles and the first one (Salayan) my vote would be del, while the second one (Karamaryan) is my keep. - Altenmann >talk 03:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Kill the nom per Last1in. Each article should be discussed separately. — Toghrul R (t) 06:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:ROC and WP:RS. The battle is not covered by Western historians, hence verification of events is difficult to achieve. The article is confusing to follow. It is written as though it was part of the Caucasus campaign, yet discusses that it falls in the scope of the Russian Revolution. A rewrite of the article in the context of the Southern Front of the Russian Civil War could be a solution, however the absence of Western coverage of the battle means it would be futile. ElderZamzam (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Can we cut it out with the "kill the nom" !votes? We have a more common and less-charged word for what is being proposed by these !votes, WP:TRAINWRECK. Let's keep the metaphorical violence to a minimum here. signed, Rosguill talk 14:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never thought of euthanasia as violent, but okay. Last1in (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my concern was that "kill the nom" could be (mis)interpreted as "kill the nominator", rather than "kill the nomination". signed, Rosguill talk 15:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW Close this and, as suggested above, have an individual AFD for each article that is being requested to be deleted per WP:TRAINWRECK. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close nom and have individual AFDs. Suonii180 (talk) 11:24, 22 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 procedural keep‎. The article will be reverted to this version in accordance with the consensus here. (non-admin closure) Actualcpscm (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Innocenti

Fabio Innocenti (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 a one sentence biography can provide some general notability, the article lacks WP:SIGCOV. The article needs citations from reliable, independent sources; is missing information about Early life, Career, Personal life, Achievements and honours (if any). JoeNMLC (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United Arab Emirates, and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No third party independent coverage found, zero references. Qcne (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and revert to before 83.110.13.102's edits: Going through the page history, I found something interesting. The page was hijacked back in January and May by the IP 83.110.13.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Originally, this article was on an Italian volleyball player who obtained a silver medal in the FIVB Volleyball Men's World Championship and competed in the Olympics. Generally, professional athletes who participate in world championship-type events warrant significant coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capsulecap (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Yes, Capsulecap, I noticed same thing. Am now wondering if there are two people with exact same name & perhaps need two articles w. Disambig? JoeNMLC (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • ω Awaiting - Question if Fabio Innocenti is two people with same name? JoeNMLC (talk) 17:12, 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! 23:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert changes to article version before [it was hijacked] and close this AfD. The Emirati Innocenti is not notable, the volleyball player can stand or lie on his own merits. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong venue, just restore the article about the volleyball player reverting the IP changes. Wathever notable or not, the page about the businessman should had not made in such a disruptive way, but eventually created as a new page. This is not the first time I have noticed attempts to turn a page into something else, an AfD is rather unnecessary in such cases, a revert and a note on the user/IP page are sufficient. Cavarrone 04:20, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Semi - Someone who won a silver medal in a world championship is certainly notable. I agree with the above - we need to revert the article back to a previous state and perhaps semi protect it. 21:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) Dusti*Let's talk!* 22:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to previous version about the volleyball player. If the businessman is a different person then it was created incorrectly. Suonii180 (talk) 11:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert as mentioned or WP:TNT Devokewater 12:26, 22 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! 08:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phoner

Phoner (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:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, only refs are WP:PRIMARY. Does not seem to meet notability. - Indefensible (talk) 20:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. May need a bit of copy editing. Quick WP:BEFORE shows it seems to pass GNG. Evaluation in journals [5][6]. Some inclusion on lists [7] [8]. Very likely more in German language. —siroχo 10:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siroxo. No sign of WP:BEFORE. More than 2 words in the nom. statement could help direct editors evaluating these. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The current sources on the page do not meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria. --Onetimememorial (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Onetimememorial I've added the 4 references I found above to the article —siroχo 20:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 17:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - the academic references are okay for barely meeting WP:GNG; neither was cited much. The lists seem irrelevant to me. Suriname0 (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per Siroxo. Okoslavia (talk) 06:30, 15 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! 23:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Striking delete per Siroxo. - Indefensible (talk) 00:04, 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 Alternative versions of Spider-Man#Insomniac's Peter Parker. History will be left intact, so if either it is desired to merge any content or additional notability takes place after release of additional material, that will still be available if needed. Given that, there is no need to send anything to draft; anyone who wants a draft or userspace copy can just do that themself. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Parker (Insomniac Games character)

Peter Parker (Insomniac Games character) (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)

Most of the reception is for the parent game, and not the character itself, and there's very little reception as is. Development info can be rolled into the parent game too where not already present, and doesn't really warrant a separate article on the character. There's also a heavy instance of synthesis here, such as some of the appearances in other media being claimed as direct nods to this particular incarnation of the character. This fails notability. Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: No! Very bad idea. You didn’t say merge. You are saying to redirect a B class sourced article to a very bad list article. This is a GA potential article, the only reason why it didn’t turn GA was that I had Wikipedia burn out or I cancelled the nomination, the list article to merge to will never turn into such just even if you changed it to merge. That is way too careless. Too many editors contributed and appreciated this article for that to happen IMO. Jhenderson 777 04:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be entirely clear though, the GAN had a lot of work that needed to be done to pass. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I never got to find out on the second vote to know for sure. I ain’t taking your word it. I could have done all the completed tasks depending on the time and requests for it. I created GAs before. Jhenderson 777 06:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Creator Keep: This is getting silly at best. Just because reception is not full like you expect. Doesn’t mean WP:GNG is not established. There is other proofs of notability in the article and it would not surprise me there is more reception now that can be added, even moreso in the future, when the sequel coming out. Are you the same editor or same IP that pulled “what about Batman: Arkham character” logic? It wouldn’t surprise me. There is a lot of articles I don’t care to keep, but this is not one of them. I even pushed GA on it one time. Jhenderson 777 04:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is also B class and had a DYK hook. It seemed to prove the notability quite well when appearing on those. Can we just wait when the sequel comes out? I promise you there will be no “content fork” if someone brings that up as some excuse. It’s probably not anyway, I wouldn’t know. Some of what was here was passed down on the video games articles. Jhenderson 777 04:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First off, assume good faith. Secondly, the second GAN you pushed it for in 2019 even mentioned there was a notability concern. That was literally years ago and yet here things are.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith. I asked if you are the editor because I don’t know. If so Wp:Otherstuffexists. But I still assume good faith since that’s just an essay. Unless you are the IP. Than that was sockpuppeting. That’s bad! But I don’t accuse, I just ask. Also the GAN had a lot not in it now. They keep adding more info after that. Then I pushed GAN but never got a nominator so I cancelled it due to wikibreaks after a long hatius. A lot was added, even the reception section stuff. That wasn’t me that added it, it was a whole bundle of other editors. There is also at least 12,000 viewers in this article. Let that sink in! Jhenderson 777 04:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why that IP was brought up, I've been editing on this account for decades now. Also it being "B-class", having a DYK blurb and 12000 edits doesn't address any of the concerns I mentioned. And I don't see that situation improving just because another game coming out. The article needs to show he is independently notable in this incarnation and it currently is not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is the character not notable? Do you read the sources telling he is popular among other proofs within the sources and maybe even more current articles of the character still and notice the article gets a decent amount of views. You were clearly not paying attention, the article grew way more past that nomination. It will most likely do it again if there is a sequel. But I would not crystal ball such a statement (but at the same time) why would you nominate a deletion when it has potential to grow when there is a sequel? I counter your statement that notability is not proven? How is it not proven? Like in my mind, this has more notability than these branched articles of the MCU. How does a decent article with enough content not prove notability? It is even established that this Peter is not the mainstream Peter. Totally different. So it’s not even like the movie version different Peter’s. Ok so you are not that IP, forget it. Answer the question regarding it not proving notability and all the others hopefully. Because I clearly see notability even if I was not the one who started it. Jhenderson 777 04:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop haranguing editors. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Me being replied to when I voted and then I replied back is not harassing haranguing. Jhenderson 777 05:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reception size is not the seal the deal of notability. Those sources that were used are. You are basing it’s by some reception size which grew in the last nomination. The development and merchandising and ti-ins are indication of notability. Clearly it has a reception larger than MCU branched articles which will grow more when a sequel come this fall. Jhenderson 777 05:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the article's reception is adequate. Very little of it actually demonstrates that Peter Parker here is discussed as a subject independent from the Insomniac Games series. I'm not opposed to this article existing, in fact I find the idea pretty fascinating, but in its current state, it does little to show that this incarnation of Peter Parker is notable on his own. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not even an incarnation. That may be the same named character but the creators pretty much admit the Peter it totally different. It is but it isn’t. I will shut up now that you think my different opinion is harassing haranguing or whatever. Jhenderson 777 05:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you ignore the actual points I was making about the quality of the Reception section instead to make a comment that's not even accurate? Being an incarnation of Peter Parker makes him a different character. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I actually made that point before. I can’t reply the same stuff. You brought up the incarnation so that’s just another point. Listen I am not going to spend time debating. A lot of editors voted. A lot more is coming. This somehow got to be a very popular AFD so I am staying out of it and letting the vote merge take place. The verdict is already in your favor. Unfortunately if this article is notable later on, I don’t think I can revive it because I have no time to revive an article. Nobody will probably care to bring it back. It’s dead, Jim! Jhenderson 777 05:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect topic into Spider-Man (Insomniac Games series), Draftify article contents per WP:PRESERVE. For context, I recall that there was no separate article about the Insomniac game series at the time this article is created so I didn't see any issue with content forking. Now that there is, a separate article specifically about that series' incarnation of Spider-Man seems redundant since information about the character can easily be redistributed throughout the development and character reception sections. OceanHok proposed that the contents be preserved into a draft and I agree. Haleth (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Hold for now. There's another game in the series coming out in just a few months. I also don't see any warning given on the talk page - which is not required, for sure, but would have been a courtesy given the article has a maintainer clearly invested in the article per above, who might have been happy to trim the article some if asked. It's difficult to tell right now how much "meat" there is in the sourcing due to the use of weak sources (e.g. CBR) and passing mentions. That said, it would not shock me if after they were removed, the resulting shorter article might still passes notability, given that the games sold a zillion copies and Spider-Man is extremely popular. Give the article ~6 months to be cleaned up and/or expanded with the new Spider-Man game coming out in the series, and re-nominate for AFD then if the concerns remain IMO, there's no deadline. (Canvassing disclaimer: the nominator has linked this AFD in the WP:DISCORD, and I only came here because of that.) SnowFire (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Then that would be a case of WP:TOOSOON. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment to agree to hold, or otherwise 'keep'. Ducatcolge (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jhenderson777: Do you feel that you could find more significant coverage than what is featured in the article right now? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources would be dead by now. So we have to wait on the upcoming sequel for reception. But there is plenty of sources bringing the character up, but it’s all speculation of what is going to happen of the character for now. Jhenderson 777 05:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Merge into Spider-Man (Insomniac Games series). Since the creator admitted that there is no more to add and prefer to wait for upcoming sequel then that would fall into WP:TOOSOON + it consists mostly about CBR and passing mentions. (Even thou the game have been released, ill doubt the character receive sigcov othe than the game itself.) GreenishPickle! (🔔) 05:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No there is notability already proven. You can’t go by reception size? The sources are what says it. i am saying I can’t find the new sources to add. You guys are judging by how the body of article of a section. Also was there not a canvas going on? Jhenderson 777 05:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I saw this link mentioned in Discord and went to check. Also, please stop mischaracterizing people's arguments, Greenish Pickle was arguing that the article presently lacks adequate sigcov. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:31, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t really mischaracterize. I just want to know if the sources are adequate. It seemed we are judging on the body article or how it is worded or something. Maybe the article sources weren’t just worded to prove it just yet. 🤷‍♂️ Also can the discord link be shown or something? I don’t know anything about this discord thing. I feel if I can’t dig old PS4 era sources, other people can maybe prove notablility. I just don’t have that skill. But in this case of current sources, they are still talking about the character, but it’s just game stuff for now. Jhenderson 777 05:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. As it is, the article simply does not succeed at demonstrating notability. The design stuff is solid, but without adequate reception, it falls short. There's only a couple sources that are actually about the character in the reception section, and the reception section has a lot of emphasis on comments made in reviews. I'd be willing to assist with work done to clear that bar and get proper significant coverage, but the author's responses makes it incredibly difficult to envision working on this article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I found the discord convo now. No need to link it to me now. Jhenderson 777 07:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents on it, would think it’s not good to have the community of the video game community behind it. That’s where the discussion began. This and a few other relevant genre articles. An user had the four hearts when he said “God speed friend”. Thankfully that editor didn’t vote.I assume good faith on the OP mentioning all the AFD’s. It’s not like he told them how to vote but it feels like a pat back on backing up their complaints in Wikipedia:I just don't like it style arguments with the same community and it felt he really encourages the idea of liking to AFD stuff implying that there is!”worst case scenarios” if a different article is maybe saved by sources. Also I don’t know what the edited out comments said and I am not bothering to know or link the discussion. I have no hard feelings to go that far because I personally don’t think of it that bad. If wrong, second chances are deserved here. Jhenderson 777 07:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is going on?? It's not that deep. Everyone in this discussion has given sensible reasons for why they have issues with this article that are not to do with not liking it. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know what went on until found a convo. The OP questioned its existence and talked about AFD on various articles. He said he would AFD and edited what he originally said. You admitted you saw it so I think you found it by the topic. I also noticed four hearted reactions of encouraging the AFD. It’s best to not know who they were. The funny thing is the argument was not lack of notability but more of complaints and why does this exist? But now video game editors are saying it’s not notable based on the video game essay rules. I want to believe what you said about it not seeming notable, but the first discussion doesn’t imply notability was the only reason and how many people were directed to the site with that link too, it can look that not caring of the article that is relevant of one of many wikiProjects this article had is more what lead to this. I don’t even know why you asked. I brought it up because I wanted to see it but you guys didn’t want to link it so I found it myself. This is all I know. Then I pretty much defended the topic for you but I am still not sure the intent was these notability concerns that you never addressed in the other site. Jhenderson 777 08:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the discussion in the wikipedia discord was regarding the article's notability. Not "I don't like this", not "This shouldn't exist", but a question of why it was independently separate as its own thing when the sources didn't support it. That was the argument presented here. However instead of actually trying to figure out what might be needed or argue your case you've gone and presumed bad faith at every opportunity and dismissed other editor's own concerns. In fact, the whole point of the discussion was to see if there was something I was missing as to why it was independently separate before bringing it to AfD. So can you please stop being disruptive? This is a mess at this point.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am just going by word by word what I saw on text. I even see it by screenshot but I won’t show. What I saw was more accurate to what you really say you said. If you mean it like that, then word it in that way. But I don’t want to talk about it any more. It’s not personal or I would have brought admin intervention to it and I don’t want to do that when it involved a personal article, I still think it maybe helped the vote in your favor when you said you would put it on AFD and brought it up on there but ✌️ and truce on it. Stick to votes now! Also stop with saying I am disruptive and harassing haranguing”. I swear I am not. You guys are just colleagues and know each other to be bias to think that but I swear my debates were being civil when we discussed this. Jhenderson 777 09:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Spider-Man or Spider-Man (2018 video game), both are suitable targets Alternative versions of Spider-Man#Insomniac's Peter Parker per Zxcvbnm. These needless superhero spinouts are unnecessary. JOEBRO64 12:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Spider-Man or Spider-Man (2018 video game), per Joebro Alternative versions of Spider-Man#Insomniac's Peter Parker per Zxcvbnm. Obvious disclosure, this topic was discussed pre-AFD in Discord, and then overnight (I was asleep), apparently linked once, which was then contested, and the link deleted. We don't really like discussion links like that, but at the end of the day, the population of that channel is WP:VG members who mostly watchlist the WP:VG delsort anyway. (It'd be good for people to remember DELSORT pages exist. I can promise that everyone who's participated in this AFD thus definitely monitors it Oh wow. I realized this is not DELSORTed. That is indeed problematic, but I will be fixing, and again, these are all common WP:VG AFD participants anyway) Now, a lot of my comments are being referred to, and misrepresented, above. I'm not going to go over that though. So here's my straight position on the actual article: The sourcing is completely misrepresented. Independent SIGCOV is being manufactured through this misrepresentation. The reception section of this article, for example, is entirely sourced to reviews of the game, not the character. Of course, it does discuss some of the details of the character in the course of describing the game, but that's hardly independent coverage. There's also really twisting prose, such as the very lengthy statement regarding EGM's review. Most critically, it makes the claim that EGM praised the character's storytelling. EGM made no such claim. It attributed nothing like that to the character. Every instance the review makes of referring to storytelling is in the context of the game's storytelling. The entire reception section is like this, while details such as Development are almost completely duplicative of the game's own development sections. The rest of the article is a huge run down of "Spider-man appeared in Marvel related properties!" with a lot of OR/Synth in regards to whether any given appearance of Spider man was actually the "Insomniac incarnation" or simply a nod to the game, which is obviously part of branding as the premiere Spider-man video game at this time. Even the Face model controversy is not really coverage of the character as an independent subject, but commentary related to the remastered video game. -- ferret (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alternative versions of Spider-Man#Insomniac's Peter Parker. I generally go right to check the reception not because it immediately proves whether the character is notable, but because it shows whether they should have an article per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In this case, there's no evidence the character themselves had an impact outside of the general story of the game. I'm not even certain he's independently notable per WP:GNG. It can't be reiterated enough: no amount of WP:REFBOMBing will substitute for significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh that's a much better target. -- ferret (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically. Although there is a question as to whether the article passes WP:NLIST - whether the concept of Spider-Man having alternate universe doppelgangers is actually independently discussed in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge - There is simply not enough to support all these Spiderman character articles. We don't need one for ever media/continuity. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since this AFD blew up with an entire wikiproject community that I originally belonged to or still do, that lead to an off wikipedia topic saying the same complaint on here of “reception section sourcing imperfection, reception section sourcing imperfection, reception section sourcing imperfection!” which seems to adhere to the project essay mentality of the burden of proof of notability on original video game characters. I literally concede! Just incubate it since a video game sequel is coming when it merges. I wish I could say I have enough time like I used to to help prove it. But the real world jobs amd hobbies are calling me in my adulting life. ✌️ Jhenderson 777 20:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As the discussion is tending towards redirect, the content will be preserved in the history if things change in the future. It's important to remember regardless of the AFD's problematic brief linking off site, if it had been properly DELSORT listed, the same project participants would have shown up. The arguments being presented is that the sourcing available does not represent independent SIGCOV as required by GNG. Please don't cast aspirations on an entire project as having bad faith motivations. -- ferret (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do me a favor and stop assuming I have bad faith assumptions and am assuming motivations. Enough of the circular logic of such WP:AGF claims. I even disclaimed truce, peace no hard feelings and assumptions of food faith countless times. How many times can I disclaim this? Stop talking FOR me, please respectfully. I feel baited because you keep saying what I do or not do as right and we are getting off track when pointing flaws on the editor and we are not focusing on the vote again. I literally would not message any more if you would stop the pointing finger trope. I said you maybe do personal messages when I saw it. That’s the only hint of this “aspiration”. But it was a form of questioning. So take it with a grain of salt and stop with finding the fault of me with this bandwagon gang up. You were affiliated in the discussion before as colleagues, and now you are of course defending the issue since you were in it. The best thing to do is the Fight Club logic, stop talking about your affiliations about it if you were a part of it. As for everything else you said about redirecting and all, I am pretty familiar. I been a Wikipedia editor for a very long time. 😂 I am not a newb. ✌️ once more. Jhenderson 777 21:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is clearly enough coverage around the specific character's reception, development, portrayal (including their controversies) to warrant a standalone article per WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore, the sequel in October will result in even further coverage of the character.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify: If the original creator is willing to work on it, it really doesn't hurt to send the article back to draftspace. After all, a sequel is coming. But right now, there is a lot of overlapping information between the first game, the franchise article, and the character article. OceanHok (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Spider Man series. NYC Guru (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, sorry for prolonging this involved discussion but we have editors voicing support for Delete, Keep, Draftify, and Redirect or Merge with several different target articles suggested. It's hard to find a consensus with editors all over the map here. I want to discourage further tangents on Discord or Video game communities on Wikipedia and just consider whether or not there are enough reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. Just as a reminder, as you all know, an outcome of Redirect or Draftify would preserve the article in case future games and media coverage about them provide additional sources of notability. Things would be more difficult to handle in those circumstances with a Delete or Merge outcome. But, personally, I'm not invested in any result, just taking the temperature of the group discussion. But please, stick to talking about the sources and the article. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Involved, obviously, but I would read a consensus to redirect to Spider-Man (Insomniac Games series), which someone can on their own initiative expand further with whatever useful merge-worthy content exists in the history. I think Draftify is a poor call compared to just redirecting, as it runs the risk of an eventual G13, destroying the history (even if Refund is easy enough). -- ferret (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I echo my support to redirect this article to Spider-Man (Insomniac Games series). I accept the suggestion that Draftify may not be an optimal solution if the draft does end up being abandoned. Haleth (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the game, this version of Parker seems to be no different or in someway revolutionary in how's he's been portrayed in other forms of media. "He's older" is about all I get from the article that makes him different.Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Alternative versions of Spider-Man#Insomniac's Peter Parker - The sources being used for the non-plot sections (development, reception, etc) are, like in many articles on video game characters, actually coverage and reviews of the game itself, where the few sentences in each of them that specifically talk about the character are all being cherry picked out, but are not actually significant coverage. While the games are notable, there is no evidence to show that the version of Spider-Man in them is, himself, a particularly noteworthy version that has the amount of significant coverage that would justify having an independent article. The list of alternate Spider-Men already has a section on the character, and would make the better redirect target. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect to Alternative versions of Spider-Man#Insomniac's Peter Parker. I find the work done on this article really impressive, and I can definitely understand why the article creator is unhappy with this situation. But I have to agree with the substance of the redirect arguments above. I feel that this level of granularity, in the absence of sources that directly support it, gets us into the messy territory where WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:GNG converge. I don't think that coverage at this level serves our encyclopedic purpose. -- Visviva (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'd like to make sure it's understood, this is not at all a question about whether the article is well written or if the creator didn't put effort in. They very much did. But the policies just aren't quite aligned. -- ferret (talk) 13:48, 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 23:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Danos

Perry Danos (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 seeing encyclopedic notability here. Coverage is low-level local. BD2412 T 21:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 21:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Released an album over a decade ago and sang at a baseball game isn't reason for notability, I can't find anything else about the person, only a riverboat captain the same name. No charted singles, no critical mention of this person found in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 21:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. May or may not be independent, but is reliable sigcov: [9] —siroχo 22:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • At 93 words, that's on the thin side of sigcov. BD2412 T 02:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed, but it's more than a trivial mention. Doesn't hit BASIC on its own but could be a compon,ent if others find more. I am iffy other Pa.com ch sources I found, hence the lack of!vote. —siroχo 03:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Oaktree b.Lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete , I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find anything that suggests notability. --Devokewater 12:13, 22 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 23:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emilson Rakotonarivo

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

One appearance for the Madagascar national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOM. Greenman (talk) 22:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I couldn't find sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 12:32, 22 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 23:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radoniaina Rabemanantsoa

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

One appearance for the Madagascar national football team four years ago. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 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 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. ✗plicit 23:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urbain Andriamampionona

Urbain Andriamampionona (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)

Five official appearances for the Madagascar national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:39, 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 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. ✗plicit 23:39, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trimayne Harris

Trimayne Harris (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)

Six appearances for the Belize national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:34, 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ilford and District Football League

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

Same sort of case as Kingston and District Football League and Wearside Combination Football League. In recent news, I can't find anything better than Guardian Series, which mentions the league once in passing. Searching in the British Newspaper Archive yields a few relevant hits but these are all just basic results listings with no meaningful prose about the league. The previous deletions linked above clearly show that this sort of coverage isn't enough, especially when it's in hyper local newspapers like Tower Hamlets Independent and East End Local Advertiser and contains nothing that we can actually build an article from. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete These leagues are low down the ladder and although there are local newspapers that use to cover the teams, there never really was the coverage that sustained notability. There maybe a way to cover leagues in a list article, but this way. Not so such. Certainly doesn't pass WP:BASIC. Govvy (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. GiantSnowman 14:22, 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 merge‎ to E.D.I. Mean#Production credits. Liz Read! Talk! 19:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E.D.I. production discography

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

I have not found any sources discussing his production discography and this article is unsourced, so I do not think this meets WP:LISTN. I am not against a merge to E.D.I Mean#Production credits. ~UN6892 tc 18:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. ~UN6892 tc 18:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge seems right, probably worth collapsing the section headings, and let's mark the whole section unreferenced and give editors a bit of time to fold existing sources in. —siroχo 22:11, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Gomes

Sylvia Gomes (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 pass the notability guideline; WP:GNG. Most sources are primary or exclusively local, with a direct connection to the subject. Additionally, one source seems to be dead. GuardianH (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete brief career as a beauty pageant, then news person. Nothing found in sources we can use, and even when the article was new, notability was on thin ice.Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with nominator; fails WP:GNG. All coverage of the subject seems to be WP:ROUTINE. User:Let'srun 03:20, 22 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! 19:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DRI Capital

DRI Capital (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:NCORP, WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH, WP:SIRS and WP:SPS. Refs are routine coverage. scope_creepTalk 18:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Canada. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per the source analysis above or below this comment, depending how the reply feature works. I can't find sourcing beyond coverage that they exist as a business. Oaktree b (talk) 03:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets examine the references, in the first two blocks:
  • Ref 1 National Post Business magazine. p. 41. This is an interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 2 [10] [11] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 3 [12] The company. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 4 [DRI Capital To Pursue Phase III Assets With Some Of Its Third Royalty Fund] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 5 [13] The company. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 6 [14] An interview. Not independent.
  • Ref 7 [15] The company. Fails WP:SIRS.
  • Ref 8 Sames as ref 7
  • Ref 9 Unable to find this, but looks routine. Person resigning from job. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Ref 10 [16] Press-release. Fails WP:SIRS
  • Ref 11 Same as ref 7 Fails WP:SIRS

This is a brochure advertising article with no attempt to supply references that are compliant with consensus based wikipedia policy. Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 20:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep I agree it is referenced badly but it looks like they are at least mentioned in quite a few books. I am not reading through them all but, I would bet there is coverage or publications where it could be improved. Seeyouincourt (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:SPA that arrived this morning. scope_creepTalk 08:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:NLT reference the username. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:12, 20 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. WP:G5 as an article created by a Bensebgli sock with no significant contributions from others. Abecedare (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chalukiya

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

Completely hoax creation, as the Chalukya dynasty was a South Indian/Gujarat/Karnataka dynasty, not Gurjar or Gujar.[1] Gujjars are an ethnic group native to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. They speak the Gujari language, which is a dialect of Rajasthani. Gujaratis, on the other hand, are an ethnic group from Gujarat, an Indian state. They communicate in Gujarati, an Indo-Aryan language. Gujjars and Gujaratis are not related since they hail from separate locations, speak different languages, and have different customs. Since Gujarat was once known as Gujaratra, locals are referred to as Gurjars or Gurjardesha residents, despite the fact that the caste referenced in this article belongs to a completely distinct tribe that raises cattle. By duplicating Chalukya dynasty, inaccurate information is supplied in this article. 𝙳𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚖𝚁𝚒𝚖𝚖𝚎𝚛 𝚍𝚒𝚜𝚌𝚞𝚜𝚜 18:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Sen, Sailendra (2013). A Textbook of Medieval Indian History. Primus Books. p. 28. ISBN 978-93-80607-34-4.
  • Comment: article creator has been indefinitely blocked, for resumed disruptive editing including blanking Chalukiya being discussed here, a cut-n-paste move of its contents to new title Chalukya clan, and edit-warring to preserve the improper page-move. Previously blocked for trying to throw another AFD with sockpuppetry, so might well try the same here. 2A00:23EE:1CB8:5F8B:50C7:59FF:FEB3:3107 (talk) 05:13, 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 merge‎ to Rainbow (TV series). Liz Read! Talk! 19:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

George (Rainbow)

George (Rainbow) (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)

Also nominating:

These characters has been the subject of barely any reliable SIGCOV. Bungle has one Den of Geek source but that is it. I could not find anything for the other two. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge very lightly into parent article. Only meaningful content seems to be some mild (humorous) confusion over what Zippy is supposed to be and his subsequent appearances in other media. Dronebogus (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Rainbow (TV series) seems appropriate, there is a mix of information not in the main article. (slight lean toward keep for the moment, with a possible alternate merge destination see below) —siroχo 22:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively. There is slight coverage to WP:PRESERVE, but not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Rainbow (TV series). Lots of passing coverage, not enough in depth for WP:GNG. Climbing High: Life Under the Rainbow Exposed and Rainbow Unzipped: The Shocking Truth about Zippy, George and Bungle - In Their Own Words appear to be humorous rather than factual. Please ping me if good sources are identified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment They're certainly not good articles but there are a few untapped sources. There is some coverage of the actors/puppeteers (particularly Bungle but also Zippy)[17][18][19][20][21] - and Stanley Bates has his own article so no need for duplication there. Also the press has published a bit on the costumes/puppets[22][23]. But merging is probably OK unless someone wants to actually expand the articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still not super familiar with this show and it's place in culture, but it seems as if the things around the show (like these puppets) are indeed meeting GNG. I'm slightly leaning toward keep but for now will just retract my bolded merge !vote. What do you think about something like a Characters of Rainbow article as a merge destination for all 3, that can hold the existing coverage in the existing articles, as well the new coverage you've found? I'm open to other ideas as well. —siroχo 19:20, 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. Liz Read! Talk! 18:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Lin Htet

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

Same sort of case as Aung Moe Htwe. BLP sourced only to the unreliable Facebook and with no evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. Best I can find is a squad list mention in SCMP and a trivial mention in Myanmar Digital Newspaper. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:37, 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 Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies per WP:ATD-R. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:33, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan T. McAllister

Ryan T. McAllister (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 WP:GNG or WP:JUDGE. Lack of secondary coverage. Let'srun (talk) 16:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The source for section "Schoharie County Judge" says "In unofficial polling, Ryan McAllister of Cobleskill got 9,996 votes to become the next Schoharie County Judge, Surrogate and Family Court Judge." Judges are not seated through "unofficial polling ". Trump nominated him to be a judge, but he was rejected by the United States Senate. Justia site still lists him as a lawyer. A Google search doesn't bring up much else. — Maile (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a dearth of secondary coverage and this article will not stand the test of time. Unless McAllister becomes noteworthy through other career advancements, he is not WP:Notable as defined. I vote to delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as a failed political candidate, didn't make it to office and notability isn't apparent otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative proposal: Merge all otherwise non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees into a single article along the lines of Unsuccessful Donald Trump judicial nominations. We can preserve a truncated form of the data in one place, without reaching individual notability concerns. BD2412 T 21:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a redirect to Donald Trump judicial appointment controversies makes more sense, seeing as there is already a description of the WP:BLP1E for this nominee and the other non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees, along with details about specific dates regarding the nomination process and why the nomination ultimately failed. As it is, the list of otherwise non-notable judicial nominees for Trump is fairly small and I don't think there is the needed SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing out the existing article. I've changed my selection/support to the redirect. — Maile (talk) 13:47, 21 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! 18:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Stufflebeam

Randy Stufflebeam (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:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sourced entirely by primary/non-reliable sources, and routine run-of-the-mill campaign coverage. My WP:BEFORE search across multiple search engines produced no reliably-sourced significant coverage as needed to satisfy the notability guidelines. Sal2100 (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Conservatism, and Illinois. Sal2100 (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable minor party functionary. A search for sources, including on newspapers.com, only revealed a few routine/typical election sources providing no WP:SIGCOV of the subject. A possible WP:ATD redirect could be 2006 Illinois gubernatorial election, but doubtful of the use since he was only a write-in candidate who netted just 0.5% of the vote. Curbon7 (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neither party functionaries nor unelected political candidates are "inherently" notable on those grounds per se — the notability test would require significant reliable source coverage about him to establish a reason why he could be credibly seen as a special case of significantly greater notability than the norm for either of those levels of significance. But this depends on a mixture of primary sources, which aren't support for notability at all, and run of the mill campaign coverage of a type and depth that every candidate in every election can always show, which aren't enough to make him more special than everybody else. Bearcat (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agree with nominator; fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. All coverage of the subject seems to be WP:ROUTINE. User:Let'srun 22:03, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:55, 21 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 Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies. This is numerically 50/50 between keep and merge, however all of the keep votes cited WP:NPOL, which was proven not applicable. With that and failing WP:GNG, the merge argument carries. (non-admin closure) CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (I will not see your reply if you don't mention me) 18:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tovah R. Calderon

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Sources are either primary or namedrops Let'srun (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Indiana, and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NPOL Snickers2686 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Snickers2686 Andre🚐 03:11, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the same reasons mentioned by Snickers2686. MIAJudges (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Which role is WP:NPOL based on? If it is the DC Court of Appeals, my understanding is that this is not a state or federal office, and her nomination was unsuccessful. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as failing the GNG. I'm not sure what the Keep proponents are thinking, but WP:NPOL holds the following: "Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them." Since the subject has never been a judge or held elective office, NPOL doesn't remotely apply. They could with as much justification claim that the article should be kept per WP:GEOLAND or WP:NHOCKEY.

    No objection to merge as per Let'srun. Ravenswing 13:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alternative proposal: Merge all otherwise non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees into a single article along the lines of Unsuccessful Joe Biden judicial nominations. We can preserve a truncated form of the data in one place, without reaching individual notability concerns. BD2412 T 21:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a redirect to Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies makes more sense, seeing as there is already a description of the WP:BLP1E for this nominee and the other non-notable failed presidential judicial nominees, along with details about specific dates regarding the nomination process. As it is, the list of otherwise non-notable judicial nominees for Trump is fairly small and I don't think there is the needed SIGCOV. Let'srun (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction, there is not a description of this specific nominee there. In this case, merging the information there would be wise in an effort to retain details regarding why the nominee was not confirmed. Let'srun (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would a controversy list about federal nominees include D.C. court nominees? Snickers2686 (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The name of the article is Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies, not Joe Biden federal judicial appointment controversies. A section can be simply added below the federal nominees with any applicable DC court nominees and the description of the WP:BLP1E. Let'srun (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Joe Biden judicial appointment controversies, as per the proposal from Let'srun. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:14, 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! 18:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Barton (actor)

Chris Barton (actor) (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. 〜 Festucalex • talk 15:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was unable to find credible independent sources for the citations. However, would not oppose moving to Draftify. CaseArmitage (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as there is the lack of reliable sources verifying the information provided. Heavy reliance on "[citation needed]" tags, suggests that the information provided is not supported by reliable, third-party sources. My own research on reliable sources was not successful. This undermines the verifiability of the content and potentially its neutrality. Thus, my recommendation is to delete the article. Bash7oven (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater 12:14, 22 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 List of Tekken characters#Alisa Bosconovitch. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alisa Bosconovitch

Alisa Bosconovitch (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 lacks any significant reception discussing them as a character to satisfy SIGCOV or notability, and trying to find sources per WP:BEFORE proved fruitless in turn. At most she gets light mentions, but little actual discussion and more passing reactions. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Tekken characters#Alisa Bosconovitch. There is no SIGCOV. I'm surprised the article lasted this long with that reception section. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review the reception section again, there were countless deletions of valid sources by Kung Fu Man and others users that I wanted to restore. Some could be removed like the Twitter citations but I remember there were news article about polls for character popularity of that image. There was a Vice article about this character on mental health that was deleted for example.[1] I think its pretty flawed to look at character reception and make an opinion, for example most news articles are written about controversies. Lucyk Chloe saw some social media uproar because of her being a generic Japanese idol character, Josie Rizal caused controversy because of a similar Phillipinian national figure with similar name, and boom there are your news articles now you have sources, and now you have ammo to write a Wikipedia article? I think that is a really flawed way how that should work on Wikipedia, and very revisionist. I mean it will only benefit basically the newest characters because the internet penetration wasnt really there yet during Xbox 360/PS3 era. Its a general problem on Wikipida with pop culture.--Crossswords (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean this Vice source that doesn't even discuss the character and barely mentions them?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It didn't, someone forcibly reverted the WP:BLAR under the guidelines of her appearances and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ O'FLAHERTY, AIDEEN. "How gaming is giving agoraphobic young people a window into the world". Retrieved 15 July 2023.
  • Redirect back to the list. Crossswords, I insist you consider whether sources speak about the character in a significant way, as the Vice article has nothing about her - she's only tangentially related, a passing mention. Further, it's not even the author mentioning Alisa, it's a person interviewed for the article. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The author is clearly mentioning Alisa and has even used the characters picture in the article header.
    Quote: But gaming has allowed her to confront her fears in a safe environment, with the hours spent fighting as the Tekken 7 character Alisa Bosconovitch serving as an avenue for her to gain confidence, and get a handle on her anxious thoughts and feelings. Crossswords (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • But this isn't commenting on Alisa in any way, and the article is clearly not talking about Alisa helping her mental health, but more Tekken 7. There's no evidence to suggest that Alisa is what helps her with mental health, it's just speculation. We obviously don't agree, so I won't continue this debate. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Tekken characters#Alisa Bosconovitch. Significant coverage must be considered when trying to create/expand an article. A character who gets numerous sentence-long mentions is not one who is individually notable, though there is a clear WP:ATD in the character list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To summarize my opinion at least, why this character warrants a Wikipedia page. She was one of the default Characters in Tekken 6 if you played the Story Campaign, playing offline she was the default companion along seeing cutscenes of her story with Lars Alexandersson. She was heavily featured in the CGI movie 'Tekken: Blood Vengeance' and there werent really that many other Tekken characters in this movie. There are countless cameos by now. Removing her own article would not reflect the reality of her impact as a Tekken character.Crossswords (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the general notability guideline doesn't give much weight to merely being featured in prominent roles. We can't speculate on her impact, which I wouldn't argue is based on what Bandai Namco does with Alisa, but what reliable secondary sources have to say about the character. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Crosswords, stop bludgeoning Dronebogus (talk) 20:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, WP:ITSPOPULAR is not a valid AfD argument. If she was truly _that_ major she would have tons of significant coverage, no? So either there are sources nobody found yet (but you haven't put forward) or she is not actually that major. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge “reception” seems to be banking on a single vice article that doesn’t actually talk about he character. Dronebogus (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this series of edits by the nominator invalidates the entire premise of the AfD: decimating an article and then nominating it for deletion is a user conduct issue and should be addressed as such before considering any such discussion valid. Articles should be put up for deletion in their "best" state, not one where someone with an opinion has already excised sources they don't think pass muster--if it's to be deleted, that's for the participants to decide. As you can see from the above !votes, this has had an effect on others' perceptions of the article. It may have gotten lost in Crossswords' WP:WAX arguments, but this deserves serious consideration — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs)
    • I'll bite - what examples of significant coverage was removed? @Jclemens: - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can see, the most significant source removed by Kung Fu Man is a Kotaku article with a few sentences about the producer joking (or not?) about her breasts being essential functionality.
    I would tend to agree that articles should not be heavily pruned before an AfD, but I also don't see the major things that were removed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's is literally nothing wrong with cleaning up an article before nominating it. Please don't baselessly suggest otherwise. Sergecross73 msg me 23:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but you just lost your moral high ground by suggesting I'm casting aspersions... thereby casting aspersions yourself. Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Moral high ground"...? Weird thing to say to someone who hasn't taken a stance in the argument. Anyways, until you cite something that says articles can't be trimmed/edited prior or during an AFD, your claim that the AFD is somehow "invalidated" is objectively false. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Opinions can be objectively false? New one to me. Jclemens (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not following. You are talking about opinions. I am not. I'm not asking for your opinion. I'm asking you to cite something - a policy, guideline, or widely accepted consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 19:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't see where I said I was referencing any policy, guideline, or widely accepted consensus. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He also didn't do what you described, he cleaned it up and ended up redirecting it back in May. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-pinging @Jclemens:; can you clarify what KFM removed that shouldn't have been? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleaning up... and then redirecting. Do you not see how that's a problem? If there's enough to keep an article, cleaning up trivial mentions is fine. If there's not and it will eventually be redirected or AfD'ed, then minimizing the coverage in the article prior to redirecting it--even if the editor doesn't think it amounts to significant coverage--is a WP:FAIT issue. All discussions should have the best evidence, and if editors think something should be deleted, then it is incumbent upon them to make sure their conduct with respect to the article has been with the cleanest possible hands. Why am I explaining this to editors who should know better? Jclemens (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jclemens:, have you considered that the goal of the initial cleanup was to figure out *what* sources could be used for notability and then see what else is out there before BLAR-ing it? It's a lot harder to work on a foundation with all the rotten wood in the way. Assume some good faith.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously. It's honestly shocking that this position is being taken. @Jclemens: What should KFM have done if the content was largely falsely attributed to a source? Or a complete misrepresentation of what the source said? What benefit is there to leaving up bad content besides misleading people? The fact that your reply did not demonstrate a single specific piece of content removed that should not have been removed tells me one of two things: either you didn't check to verify what KFM removed was even remotely valuable, which would make me think that you have extremely poor judgment, or you checked it, saw nothing of value removed, and were being dishonest in your reply. For an experienced editor, it's concerning that I'm arriving at either negligence or dishonesty. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you asserting any of those possibilities to be the case? No? Then leave the WP:WAX arguments out of discussion, please. The answer to the question I suppose you believe is a "gotcha" is that of course I didn't check any of the sources, because it wasn't my job to. For that matter, I'm not an expert in video game character notability, so much as I am in editor conduct. Kung Fu Man Could have added "Full disclosure: I removed a bunch of lousy sources back in May" or words to that effect in the nomination, even pointing to the diffs like I did, but didn't. If you think nominators are responsible to search the Internet for sources, but not discuss sources they themselves previously removed prior to the nomination, I'd be really curious as to why. Jclemens (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Non-experts may participate, of course, but I would highly recommend that non-experts think twice before making baseless accusations of user conduct without even verifying whether there is a conduct issue to be found. This is not "editor who joined in 2008" caliber, aim higher than this. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Who's the non-expert on user conduct? Not me. Who joined in 2008? Not me. Who are you even talking to? I certainly don't need your approval or consent to document a user conduct issue, although it is curious how much pushback you and others are giving me, defending the suboptimal nominator conduct. Jclemens (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Zero WP:SIGCOV. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 10:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As said before. And by the way it wasnt just Alisa's page which was entirely deleted/merged but so was Asuka Kazama and Lili, all female characters from the Tekken series around the same time as Alisa's. Unfortunately there wasnt someone who decided to have an argument first like I did for Alisa, to have discussion page about a deletion/merge at the time?--Crossswords (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep I would think there would be enough products, dolls and merchandise where most characters would be notable. Seeyouincourt (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to WP:GNG, notability needs to be established via reliable secondary sources, and the existence of merchandise does not fulfill that. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Not a valid metric for proving notability. Sergecross73 msg me 02:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a WP:SPA that arrived today. scope_creepTalk 08:38, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An admin unrelated to this has blocked them for being a SOCK. Sergecross73 msg me 13:21, 21 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. Consensus amongst those who participated is that notability was established within the AFD itself. I'd suggest editing the article to add the sources that Cunard came up with. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spin Again

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

I was able to find one review of this book (from The Pittsburgh Press), but the only other coverage available from what I can find is a very short blurb from Entertainment Weekly (here). These sources have been added to the article. Appears to fail WP:BKCRIT, as only the Pittsburgh Press article should be considered "significant" coverage, with the EW article not making the cut. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Sources
    1. Cunningham, John R. (1992-02-04). "Books take pleasant glances at film theaters, board games". The Pittsburgh Press. Archived from the original on 2023-07-16. Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Newspapers.com.

      The review notes: "Less grandiose, both in subject matter and presentation, but no less memory inducing for the baby boom generation is "Spin Again." Though it does briefly investigate the historical conception of board games in the 1880s, the thrust of Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer's joint effort is an analysis and loving look at game playing in the wake of television's mass invasion of American culture. ... Noticeably absent from the book, however, are "Candyland" and "Chutes and Ladders." ... Despite its limitations and these obvious omissions, "Spin Again" is still an enjoyable way to spend a contemporary rainy day."

    2. Solomon, Charles (1991-12-15). "Spin Again: Board Games From the Fifties..." Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-16. Retrieved 2023-07-16.

      The review notes: "SPIN AGAIN: Board Games From the Fifties and Sixties by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer (Chronicle: $16.95). The minimal text of this campy survey reveals that board games have a surprisingly long history in the United States: ... This brightly colored book would make an excellent hostess gift/ice breaker at baby-boomer holiday parties, provoking delighted cries of “Remember Lie Detector?” and “I used to play Mouse Trap!”"

    3. Verdi, Christine (August–September 1992). "Vintage Board Games Get Another Turn". Your Money. Vol. 13, no. 5. Consumers Digest. p. 39. ISSN 1057-123X. Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "These favorites, along with a host of others, are cataloged in Spin Again: Board Games from the Fifties and Sixties (Chronicle Books, 415/777-7240) by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer. Spin Again takes a look at the history of board games, especially those spawned from popular TV icons. The book doesn't pin values on any of the games, but the authors provide helpful categories and illustrations of the original issues. Some of the top TV-inspired categories include: ..."

    4. Hochberg, Burt (April 1993). "Words on Play". Games. Vol. 17, no. 2. ISSN 0199-9788. Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "Spin Again by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer ... is an affectionate look at boardgames of the 1950s and '60s, including histories of the major game companies and glorious full-color illustrations, many showing the board and other components as well as the box. The lack of an index limits its usefulness to collectors, but it sure is handsome."

    5. "The Bookworm: Spin Again". The Inside Collector. Vol. 2, no. 7. May 1992. p. 86. ISSN 1052-861X. Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Internet Archive.

      The review notes: "Spin Again is an informative as well as a nostalgic look at the games we played. Well illustrated with each game's boards, boxes, cards, tokens, etc., it also includes a brief history of games since the 1800's, and historical background on major companies."

    6. Seago, Kate (1991-11-24). "Lunchbox Library - Just Roll the Dice, Will Ya?". Los Angeles Daily News. Archived from the original on 2023-07-16. Retrieved 2023-07-16.

      The article notes: "Here are photos of the most popular games, accompanied by a short history of the development of the pastime. One mark of a popular TV show in the '50s and '60s was that it had its own board game, and here are some of the best, including You'll Never Get Rich, with Phil Silvers as Sgt. Bilko on the box (1955)."

    7. Larson, Susan (1991-12-18). "Board Chairmen - New Book Salutes the Games People Played". The Times-Picayune. Archived from the original on 2023-07-16. Retrieved 2023-07-16.

      The article notes: "For starters, they're collected in a terrific new book, "Spin Again: Board Games from the Fifties and Sixties" (Chronicle, $16.95), by two New Orleans natives, Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaeffer. This loving tribute to board games is a winsome trip down memory lane, an anecdotal history of both the games themselves and their creators. ... Polizzi and Schaeffer were inspired to research the history of games by Polizzi's collection, which in addition to those games from childhood began to get serious three years ago after the purchase of a "Beverly Hillbillies game" on impulse."

    8. Osborne, Julia (1992-08-06). "Board Games Can Zap Post-vacation Boredom". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2023-07-16. Retrieved 2023-07-16.

      The review notes: "Take a nostalgic trip this summer with Spin Again: Board Games From the Fifties and Sixties (Chronicle, $16.95). By Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer, the softbound book details the history of board games in general and the ones that baby boomers grew up with in particular. I quickly paged through the color photographs to find my long-gone Barbie: Queen of the Prom game. ... The book includes concise bios of Milton Bradley, George and Charles Parker, and the founders of Mattel. It is fun and well-done."

    9. Less significant coverage:
      1. Reif, Rita (1991-12-25). "Play the collecting game". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on 2023-07-16. Retrieved 2023-07-16.

        The article notes: ""People collect games that look great but are often the least challenging to play," said Rick Polizzi, the co-author with Fred Schaefer of the new book Spin Again: Board Games of the 50's and 60's (Chronicle Books). ... Most of the 180 board games illustrated in Spin Again are from Polizzi's collection of 800."

      2. Van Matre, Lynn (1991-11-24). "The games people played in the 1950s and '60s prompt a tribute". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2023-07-16. Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer note in "Spin Again" (Chronicle, 120 pages, $16.95 softbound), a colorful look at board games of the 1950s and '60s. ... "Spin Again" pictures all of these games and around 150 more in color, along with brief descriptions and an introductory history of board games. For almost anyone who grew up in the '50s and '60s, this tribute to the now-collectible games of the past is sure to bring back at least a few pleasant memories."

      3. Rosenkrantz, Linda (1992-03-08). "Anyone for a quick game of 'Gidget'?". The Baltimore Sun. Archived from the original on 2023-07-16. Retrieved 2023-07-16.

        The article notes: ""Spin Again, Board Games From the Fifties and Sixties," by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer (Chronicle Books), offers not only a vivid presentation of these icons of the recent past but traces their history -- board games, it seems, date back more than 4,000 years -- from the moralizing games of the Victorian era to the voluptuous Barbie."

      4. Feldman, Gayle; Simson, Maria (1991-08-08). "Trade paperbacks". Publishers Weekly. Vol. 238, no. 35. pp. 280+. Archived from the original on 2023-07-16. Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Gale.

        The article notes: "Chronicle Books Spin Again: Board Games of the Fifties and Sixties (Sept., $16.95) by Rick Polizzi and Fred Schaefer features photographs and text describing popular game boards and playing pieces of the '50s and '60s. 15,000 first printing. Advertising."

      5. "Recapturing the Past in Childhood Closets". Americana. Vol. 19, no. 5. November–December 1991. p. 38. ISSN 0090-9114. Retrieved 2023-07-16 – via Internet Archive.

        The article notes: "The young Californian is also the coauthor of an engaging, richly illustrated new book on his favorite subject—Spin Again: Board Games of the Fifties and Sixties (Chronicle, $16.95)."

      6. Rubin, Saul (1995-08-17). "Games Keepers - Baby boomers get nostalgic for games of their childhood". Daily Breeze. Archived from the original on 2023-07-16. Retrieved 2023-07-16.

        The article notes: "... Burt Hockberg, senior editor of the New York City-based Games magazine.  Spin Again (Chronicle Books, 1992, $20) and Baby Boomer Games (Collector Books, 1995, $28) are beautifully illustrated coffee table books that catalog a variety of board games spanning the '40s through the '70s. Hockberg praised the books and gave them a favorable review in his magazine. "Basically he's mining a field that no one else has bothered to do," Hockberg says. "His books are special because they show pictures and you can see the games. It helps people to know what to look for.""

      7. Schwarbaum, Lisa (1992-06-26). "What is cool 1992: Books". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2023-07-16. Retrieved 2023-07-16.

        The article notes: "Now he has 1,000 — and he and cowriter Fred Schaefer have produced Spin Again, a classily designed, essence-of-stuff-in-the-attic book about board games from the ’50s and ’60s to remind you of what you, too, stupidly tossed. Your turn."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Spin Again to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep per the wonderfully detailed Cunard who I am starting to suspect is actually an advanced chatbot. But yeah, those sources are enough IMO. Hobit (talk) 17:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Thanks to the sources listed by Cunard. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:48, 21 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 Ryo Ikuemi. The consensus amongst those who participated is a redirect. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Bunny! (manga)

Honey Bunny! (manga) (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 2016. Both volumes reviewed by WP:A&M/RS listed Planete BD [24] [25] Unable to find any other RS coverage. Fails WP:NBOOKS. Redirect to the author Ryo Ikuemi or the magazine? Charcoal feather (talk) 14:40, 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 merge‎ to COVID-19 vaccination in Germany#Above-average number of "post-vac" reports in Germany. Liz Read! Talk! 18:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Vac

Post-Vac (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)

Inappropriate content fork covering adverse effects attributed to covid-19 vaccination in German-speaking countries. The adverse effects of the vaccine are the same in Germany etc. as any other country so this term makes no sense for an enwiki article title. The content should be covered if WP:DUE at COVID-19 vaccine or potentially adverse effects of the COVID-19 vaccine if a split is merited. (t · c) buidhe 14:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against deletion but the article should be renamed: I'm not a native English speaker but the term "post-vac" sounds very English to me – yet I didn't find articles about it from other countries than Germany, Switzerland and Austria. And the articles from Germany and Switzlerland are really profound, it is an established term there.
  • ""Post-Vac-Syndrom": Mehr als die Hälfte der weltweiten Fälle in Deutschland registriert". www.aerzteblatt.de (in German). 29 June 2023. Retrieved 13 July 2023.
  • "Post-Vac-Syndrom - Schwer krank nach Covid-Impfung: Seltenheit oder Leid mit System?". www.srf.ch. 10 February 2023. Retrieved 15 July 2023.
What's odd is that more than half of the reported worldwide cases (that show symptomes described as "Post-Vac" in Germany) occurred in Germany.--Lugioner (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The German Paul Ehrlich Institute writes in its recent report:[26]
"Beim Vergleich der dargestellten absoluten Zahlen von Verdachtsmeldungen fällt auf, dass zum Zeitpunkt der Auswertung ca. 50 Prozent aller weltweit registrierten Verdachtsfälle (n=2.657) mit diesen Gesundheitsstörungen aus Deutschland berichtet wurden (n=1.452). Dabei ist zu beachten, dass in Deutschland keineswegs 50 Prozent aller Impfdosen weltweit verabreicht wurden."
(transl. with DeepL) "When comparing the absolute numbers of suspected cases presented, it is striking that at the time of the evaluation, approximately 50 percent of all suspected cases registered worldwide (n=2,657) with these health disorders were reported from Germany (n=1,452). It should be noted that by no means 50 percent of all vaccine doses worldwide were administered in Germany."--Lugioner (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: COVID-19 and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Austria and Switzerland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the moment, I would keep. The story is important, it's being reported in quite serious sources, so we can't ignore it. But it doesn't fit well into a global article on the vaccination because it's almost exclusively a German-language-area phenomenon, and quite possibly nothing to do with the vaccination. We don't yet know what it means, what it is, or where the story is going, so I would leave the article as it is, until things are more clear. But with no prejudice against a future merge or move. Elemimele (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also vote to keep the article and fully agree that the subject is important and that serious sources have been quoted. It does not do to simply ignore the ongoing research into this highly sensitive and important subject. I do not consider it a merely "German" related problem. However, it is a fact that the German minister of health, dr. Lauterbach, has officially accepted the phenomenon of post-vaccination damage. More research on this subject should indeed be done with an open mind. The answer does not lie in a mere "deletion" of the article. Hanengerda (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect : Half is a content fork, and the other half is related to Germany with sources in German... so why is it being described in English Wikipedia. The "Background" section uses Template:Excerpt which in this case includes the first paragraph, omits paragraphs 2-6, and ends with the 4 bulleted points while omitting the important preamble "Documented rare serious effects include". A serious error. Put the content into COVID-19 vaccination in Germany#Above-average number of "post-vac" reports in Germany and leave Post-Vac as a redirect. Grorp (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC) Added: I will point out these phrases from the non-extracted content: "the term is only common in [3 countries]"; "no causal relationship has been found"; "post-vac has been little studied"; "it was found that [symptoms] after vaccination were no more common than would be expected based on normal incidence". In other words, this subject is a fringe theory and falls under the guidelines of WP:FRINGE. The second half of the article already exists in an article where it belongs; here it is a WP:CONTENTFORK, and WP:SYNTH by trying to associate known adverse events with the new German-regional term "post-vac" — where I'm quite sure if I checked all nine of those extracted sources, I would find not a single one of them uses the term "post-vac". This whole article is being used to push a POV. Grorp (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The excerpt template wasn't in the original Wiki-article, and it's grouped in a way that the sources of the excerpt are held apart from the sources of the "core article". The template used has the simple form {{Excerpt|COVID-19 vaccine|Adverse events|paragraphs=1}} perhaps it can be improved but the word "rare" in the preamble isn't necessary since the three bulleted points indicate themselves the incidence rates: "...one person per 250,000 to 400,000 doses ...", "...These affect about one person per 100,000...", "...0.3 to 5 cases per 100,000 persons with the highest risk in young males..."
The criticism about the non-English sources is the main part: Now the English version of the statement from May 2023 from the Paul Ehrlich Institute has been included: Statement from the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut on "Post-Vac Syndrome" after COVID-19 Vaccination (dated 19 May 2023) and instead of the translated quote (from the comprehensive safety report from June with earlier(!) data cut-off) above one now has an actual quote in English: "When comparing the absolute numbers of reports of suspected cases presented, it seems notable that at the time of the evaluation, more than 50% of all suspected cases registered worldwide (n=2,817) with these symptoms were reported from Germany (n= 1,547). It should be noted that by no means were 50% of all vaccine doses administered worldwide administered in Germany."
So now 3 of the 12 sources of the core article are in English (plus the 9 sources from the excerpt)--Lugioner (talk) 10:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Non-English sources are fine, whether the article is merged or kept. We are a global encyclopaedia. Some people are interested in things that happen in non-English-speaking areas, and for those areas, often the best sources are in the local language. Elemimele (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our goal is "the sum of all human knowledge", not "the sum of knowledge known or cared about by English speakers". We have several similar situations, including the MMR vaccine and autism hoax (which really only exists in English-speaking countries; in France, they all "know" that the MMR is fine, but the Hep B vaccine causes MS, and in parts of Africa, they all "know" that the polio vaccine causes infertility). Disinformation tends to stay within language bubbles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge : The topic has clearly received attention in the German-speaking world. Regardless of if it is a "real" phenomenon or not, it is notable as a topic. The fact that it relates to German speaking countries is not a reason to say it should only exist in the German version of Wikipedia and not the English version. People who speak English and don't speak German may still be interested in learning about the topic, and there are plenty of English Wikipedia articles that relate to topics relevant to other countries/languages and not to English or English speaking countries: for example, Hikikomori. And it's not so much whether or not the adverse effects of the vaccine are the same in Germany as in the rest of the world or not that matters; it's that the concept is uniquely conceptualized in Germany that matters and makes it notable. Vontheri (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to COVID-19 vaccination in Germany. This is clearly a WP:CONTENTFORK, and definitely should not be left alone under an obscure title where pro-fringe editors can edit it unnoticed. Tercer (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and merge if there's anything useful. There not enough here for a separate article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:46, 20 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 13:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al-Faraj

AfDs for this article:
Abdulaziz Al-Faraj (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)

Stats stub on a footballer that was previously deleted last summer and this new version does nothing to address the previous reasons for deletion. The best sources found in an Arabic WP:BEFORE are Ar Riyadiyah 1, Al Araby and Ar Riyadiyah 2. The first two are trivial mentions and the last is an image caption. Still no evidence of meeting WP:SPORTBASIC so the reasons for deletion are still valid. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:34, 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 speedy keep‎ per WP:CSK #1 (non-admin closure) AviationFreak💬 17:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bhima Kheda

Bhima Kheda (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)
  • Withdrawn by nominator JoeNMLC (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This village article has zero references. It is missing information to show the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article by using multiple sources that meet four criteria. The sources should be (1) reliable (2) secondary (3) independent of the subject (4) talk about the subject in some depth. Created on 20 November 2013. JoeNMLC (talk) 12:31, 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 09:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Gertz

Sebastian Gertz (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 and WP:NSCHOLAR. Almost all the sources cited are either primary/non-independent. The only exception is a single review of Gertz's book which is not sufficient by itself to establish notability. WJ94 (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Edit: I've just noticed that there's a second review cited in the article for a second book. Nevertheless, I still don't think that having authored two books each with a single review (on a website which seems to review a lot of classics books) is sufficient for GNG/NSCHOLAR/NAUTHOR. WJ94 (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. WJ94 (talk) 09:51, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aage Leidersdorff

AfDs for this article:
Aage Leidersdorff (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 and WP:SPORTCRIT #5, and violates WP:NOTDATABASE. While the article was kept at a previous AfD on the basis that winning an award from a Danish tabloid met WP:ANYBIO #1, and thus Leidersdorff was likely to be notable, in the 18 months since that AfD no one has been able to find additional suitable sources.

Even if an award from a tabloid newspaper is a well-known and significant award, an assertion that seems dubious to me, the failure to find any suitable sources is strong evidence that in this case it is not a predictor of notability. In addition meeting ANYBIO doesn't create an exception from the requirements of SPORTSCRIT #5, and thus if we cannot find any significant coverage we cannot keep the article. BilledMammal (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Denmark. BilledMammal (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article also includes this reference: # Paul Yogi Mayer, 2000: Jüdische Olympiasieger: Sport - Ein Sprungbrett für Minoritäten, Agon Sportverlag Kassel, p.107 which you can see here reference https://www.google.com/books/edition/J%C3%BCdische_Olympiasieger/0kYTAQAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Aage+Leidersdorff&dq=Aage+Leidersdorff&printsec=frontcover Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I understand that only contains a passing mention; if you disagree can you provide a more extensive quote? BilledMammal (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also notable as a furrier. See new references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at those references none seem to constitute WP:SIGCOV; they all appear to be passing mentions. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What the nom has not mentioned is that the lack of SIGCOV is mostly down to the fact that Danish newspapers are not accessible outside Denmark for 100 years after publication, so in the absence of an editor physically located in Denmark it's not possible to check in what will be the principal source. However, a name search is still possible even if the articles themselves are not accessible (see Mediestream). Aage Leidersdorff died on 19 Feb 1970: in February 1970 16 newspapers mentioned him. In 1945, when he was awarded the B.T. sportsperson of the year award, his name occurs 24 times, doubtless in part because of the significance of a Jewish sportsman receiving the award in the same year as the end of the Nazi occupation of Denmark. I haven't checked other years. Without seeing the articles it's obviously not possible to gauge the quality of the coverage but it is possible to be sure that there's a quantity of it, and that there could well be more. Ingratis (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 12:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per Eastmain and editors at the prior AfD. We should be able to presume coverage exists (COMMONSENSE) for someone good enough to make the Olympics over a span of 1932-48 who was named the national athlete of the year in a country with close to 6,000,000 people (that newspaper most certainly gave an in-depth article with the announcement - also, per ANYBIO, we should be able to keep since the newspapers that covered him are not available). I strongly dislike the practice of BilledMammal and others to continually re-nominate articles which have been kept at prior deletion discussions because they dislike the outcome. Also, pinging participants from the prior discussion (besides two who have been blocked): @Løken, Jevansen, Garuda3, Geschichte, and Liz: BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We should be able to presume coverage If we can find one example of WP:SIGCOV then we can. If we can't, then we are forbidden from doing so per WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, and a local consensus is not permitted to overrule that restriction - if you disagree with it, I suggest proposing that #5 is rescinded. BilledMammal (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly there are times when exceptions need to be made, and WP:NSPORT (which includes WP:SPORTCRIT) agrees: [This] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I wasn't able to find anything definitive in Danish to pass GNG, but there is some contemporary coverage available, and he was sort of notable for a fur business according to the Danish wikipedia. SportingFlyer T·C 16:12, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe there could be more out there but as we all know, our access to older, non-English materials is very limited due to factors out of our control. I think it would be highly unlikely of him to be a sportsperson of the year, own a store and make three olympics yet not be covered. See WP:SBEXT. KatoKungLee (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as WP:OSO is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Between his appearance in the documentary film (which no one here has watched) and the multiple obituaries in Danish newspapers in 1970 (which no one has been able to access but are indexed in the Danish Digital Newspaper Collection), not to mention the many other Danish newspaper clippings across all years (over 1,000 on the name which was admittedly passed down together with the family furrier business), there appears to be ample offline coverage that could satisfy WP:BASIC that we simply cannot access and do not have the language skills to assess here and now. The story of Aage Leidersdorff is more than "just a typical sports bio" as he was a Danish Jew competing in the Olympics before and after the Nazi occupation of Denmark, and was evacuated to Sweden during World War II (as discussed in the Jewish Olympians book). So in addition to the main Danish newspaper archives and books, I would also suggest visiting the Danish Jewish Museum library for additional sources. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cielquiparle's sound analysis above. Pointless and POINTY AfD. Cavarrone 08:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm not part particularly fond on these kinds of !votes, I am leaning keep despite the missing SIGCOV due to a few things: a) Winning the B.T. Guld award is a strong indication that an individual was a notable athlete. b) There is evidence on him getting coverage in the Danish media both when he won the award and when he died but we can't fully access them because c) Offline sources from that period seem to be impossible to fully access unless you visit a Danish library due to local copyright laws. d) I further found this coverage on him in the 1949 edition of Nordisk familjeboks sportlexikon that describes him as the "Nordics' foremost foil and saber fencer since 1935." Alvaldi (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He is also covered in the fifth Volume from 1943 [27][28] Alvaldi (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no one has found additional suitable sources in the 18 months since the last AFD as they continue to remain inaccessible. We can be confident these sources exists as Cielquiparle has outlined. Jevansen (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jevansen For additional sources, I point to the above mentioned sources from the 1943 and 1949 editions of the Swedish Nordisk familjeboks sportlexikon where he is described as the "Nordics' foremost foil and saber fencer since 1935" and his career highlights are listed. Alvaldi (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. ANYBIO is irrelevant if the award is related to sports, as we had a global consensus that no sporting achievement can be used to presume notability directly. Same with NBASIC, as we also had global consensus that sportspeople articles must contain a citation to IRS SIGCOV. No such SIGCOV has been identified, and the ambiguity in Danish newspaper hits for him versus his father makes it pointless to speculate on newspaper coverage, so a redirect would be most appropriate to retain the history until we can access those sources. JoelleJay (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need to realize that there are times that the rules are not to be strictly followed; per policy and the guideline NSPORT/SPORTCRIT: [This] is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Also FWIW, in my opinion if the proposal at that NSPORT2022 discussion was "all articles must have significant coverage or they must be deleted no matter how great their athletic achievements were even if coverage is impossible to find and we know it is near-certain to exist" it would have assuredly not achieved consensus. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • ANYBIO is as much a guideline as NSPORT so NSPORT does not override ANYBIO (nor vice versa). And with guidelines there are no "musts". All guidelines are subject to exceptions when warranted. Rlendog (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that the B.T. Guld award is not some nondescript tabloid award, it is a major Danish sports award presented at the annual sports gala held by the Danish Broadcasting Corporation[29][30][31][32][33] Alvaldi (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cielquiparle. Rlendog (talk) 20:45, 20 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 and no indication further input or source analysis is forthcoming Star Mississippi 12:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HCL Sametime

HCL Sametime (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. There are no independent sources Mdggdj (talk) 09:17, 1 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! 05:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, subject meets GNG Wiley book, Taylor & Francis text, Wiley "for Dummies" book —siroχo 07:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Siroxo. Meets WP:GNG. 2001:861:3186:7680:39C4:CDBC:7327:2B21 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For some input on the sources presented by Siroxo.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 12:19, 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 Cook Islands international footballers. as an ATD. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ishak Mohammed

Ishak Mohammed (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 Cook Islands international footballers. Three appearances for the Cook Islands national football team. No indication of notability. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. Full name is "Ishaq Nazeem Mohammed" or some variation thereof. JTtheOG (talk) 08:22, 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! 12:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per my BEFORE search. Jogurney (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not convinced that someone searching 'Ishak Mohammed' will definitely be searching about this footballer, therefore deletion seems like the best route, given GNG is failed. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:41, 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 redirect‎ to MFJ Enterprises. History remains should there be sourced info to merge Star Mississippi 12:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hy-Gain Antennas and Rotators

Hy-Gain Antennas and Rotators (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)

Stub about a company that manufactures antennas for ham radio. The only two sources cited are PR from the company itself and a WP:BEFORE search reveals only promotional information rather than any WP:SIGCOV. This company is likely notable within the ham radio hobbyist sphere, but I'm not seeing any justification for a Wikipedia article. Flip Format (talk) 09:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

--A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking my "keep" for now, pending refs. --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amateur radio --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to MFJ Enterprises, of which it is a subsidiary. A quick search shows some coverage, [34], [35], and maybe, not sure about reliability: [36]. Basic facts about the company and its products are verifiable, as well as some of it's history. I don't know if this is enough coverage for GNG, but it is enough verifiability to merge verifiable bits to MFJ, which places the former company in a modern context. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to the parent, MFJ Enterprises.Jacona (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to its parent company MFJ Enterprises. Fails WP:GNG per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 03:11, 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. The redirect will be restored. ✗plicit 05:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golden root

Golden root (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 able to find much of anything about the topic. The phrase was coined by Laura Rockhold who doesn't appear notable herself nor a subject-matter expert. Topic doesn't appear to have any widespread usage. ––FormalDude (talk) 05:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Golden root is not a phrase, it is a new, official poetic form. It was invented by Laura Rockhold in 2022, who is a poet and the subject matter expert. As of now, Rockhold's golden root has been published in Black Fox Literary Magazine, been recognized by the League of Minnesota Poets and is forthcoming in other literary journals. 97.127.51.105 (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 97.127.51.105 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • Delete & Restore Redirect to Rhodiola rosea - There are no sources in the article actually discussing the topic, and searches turned up absolutely no coverage on it in reliable sources. The phrase was a valid redirect to the topic of Rhodiola rosea before, so this current article on this non-notable topic should be deleted and the redirect restored. Rorshacma (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep & Restore Redirect to Rhodiola rosea at the top of the Golden root page. The golden root poetic form is new as of 2022; it is established and published with additional publications forthcoming. Black Fox Literary Magazine and the League of Minnesota Poets are reliable sources who have published and recognized the golden root poetic form. 97.127.51.105 (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 97.127.51.105 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
  • Delete (or redirect if a suitable target can be found). Seems to be a realtively new form that has not yet attracted the significant coverage in independent reliable sources that means it would meet WP:GNG. Please ping me if good sources are idntified. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: How about this suggestion, the current article is draftified and the redirect is restored?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and restore redirect per above, this is a non-notable neologism and also possibly promotional. SportingFlyer T·C 16:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and restore redirect per above. Not seeing sufficient coverage (or really any coverage) to justify a merge here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:18, 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 Draftify‎. Star Mississippi 12:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neeru Yadav

Neeru Yadav (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:NPOL. The majority of the cited sources do not meet the credibility standards as per Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guideline (WP:SIRS) Notability guidelines for people (WP:BIO). CGGCA201 (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. CGGCA201 (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references are entirely valid, with the possible exception of LiveMint. The Hindu is a newspaper of record. Broadcast news sources are usually reliable unless they are Fox News or similar propaganda outlets. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Rajasthan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:15, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CGGCA201: WP:SIRS is for sources covering companies, organizations, products, services, etc. The subject here is a WP:BLP. In any case, if you have concerns with sources, tag the article with {{BLP sources}}. Jay 💬 18:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay sincerely appreciate your assistance (teaching). Made the required modifications to the nomination statement. CGGCA201 (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you point me to the credibility standards of WP:BIO's sources that you are referring to? Is it what Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria says about the sources? Can you list the sources that are not meeting standards, and which standards are they not meeting? Jay 💬 06:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jay
    • Citation No: 1 (Source date: 06 Feb 2023) - The ABP Live article strongly promotes a campaign for maintaining cleanliness in villages, which is an essential responsibility for any sarpanch holding that position. Considering a general duty as a significant accomplishment is simply a matter of passing it off. However, it also falls under the category of WP:CHURN, as the article primarily focuses on the subject of hockey training for underprivileged girls and the sarpanch's donation of her salary to support the welfare of girls.
    • Citation No: 2 (Source date: 07 Jan 2023) - Firstly, there is disagreement about whether the LIVEMINT article is a reliable source. Additionally, it can be considered repetitive and lacking new information, as the article mainly focuses on hockey training for underprivileged girls and the sarpanch's donation of her salary to support the welfare of girls.
    • Citation No: 3 (Source date: 13 Feb 2023) - This article primarily revolves around her role as a sarpanch, which does not meet the criteria of WP:NPOL as it is not an office held at the state or province level within legislative bodies. Rather, it is a position limited to the village level.
    • Citation No: 4 (Source date: 06 Feb 2023) - For its coverage related to Indian domestic politics, foreign politics, and other topics in which the Government of India may have an established stake, there is consensus that Asian News International is questionable.
    • Citation No: 5 (Source date: 27 Jan 2023) - This is a repetition of the same theme - hockey training for underprivileged girls and the donation of her salary for the welfare of girls. It is WP:CHURN
    • Citation No: 6 (Source date: 04 Dec 2022) - Even though WP:THEHINDU meets the requirements mentioned in WP:RSP, it's important to mention that it wasn't written by one of their staff writers. Moreover, there are concerns about WP:CHURN—salary sharing, to support the welfare of girls.
    Please note that all the references cited fall within the timeframe of December 2022 to February 2023. This indicates a coordinated endeavor to construct and enhance the reputation of the Sarpanch.
    I will include a few additional Google news sources that haven't been utilized in the article yet. These sources can be used to further support the aforementioned point, particularly by emphasizing their theme (churnalism) and publication dates.
    • "Hockey Wali Sarpanch Neeru Yadav Contributes Her Two-Year Honorarium For Rural Development at Outlook (Indian magazine), published as sponsored post under "Outlook for Brands". (Source date: 06 Feb 2023).
    • "Hockey Wali Sarpanch, Neeru Yadav, Boosts Women's Participation In Sports at Businessworld, published under "BW Online Bureau". (Source date: 26 Feb 2023).
    • "Giving wings to their dreams: Rajasthan's village trains girls to score on hockey fields" at The New Indian Express. (Source date: 19 March 2023).
    • "Neeru Yadav, The Hockey wali Sarpanch: A Dynamic Leader Igniting Change and Development in Rural Rajasthan" at The Free Press Journal, published as a PR piece (an email is visible for rectification - [email protected]). (Source date: updated 26 May 2023).
    CGGCA201 (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have listed the sources, but not answered the questions regarding the credibility standards per WP:BIO. Livemint and ANI may be removed as questionable. Not being written by a staff writer is not a requirement. None of the content about salary sharing is part of the article. In fact the article contains very less of the coverage in sources on her other initiatives, including sports. Are you saying that there are no credible sources, not only in the article, but otherwise, that have substantive coverage of the person? Jay 💬 19:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly, I apologise for going off topic. To begin with, in terms of credibility standards, the sarpanch does not meet the requirements outlined in WP:ANYBIO. Furthermore, if we delve into more details, she also does not meet the criteria set by WP:NPOL, as she has not held a position at the state or provincial level within legislative bodies. Instead, her role is limited to the village level. And, As someone who has nominated this article for deletion, I have come to the conclusion, based on my research, that there are no reliable sources available, either within the article itself or elsewhere (including Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books), that provide substantial information about the individual. CGGCA201 (talk) 04:00, 30 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! 18:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is the subject does not satisfy GNG and NPOL. So now we have some starting point for this AfD, and we have one week to validate this! Jay 💬 07:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through all sources and enhanced the article. I did not go through the non-English sources. I think they have the same coverage of topics as the English ones judging by the same images used in all editions. The coverage is very limited and related to 3 or 4 activities of the subject at the village level, but if an editor can find and add more to the article, then I may change my mind. 2023 is election year in Rajasthan and I would expect increasing coverage, but not wider or neutral coverage, unless the subject is elevated to district or state level. I wouldn't want to keep this as draft per WP:CRYSTAL just in case the subject becomes suddenly notable. The subject is promising but Delete for now as WP:TOOSOON, and may be undeleted in future if the political dynamics change. Jay 💬 07:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify for article incubation, there might be notability here but current sources may not be good enough per above. - Indefensible (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I see no consensus. Would editors consider draftifying?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz As someone who nominated this article for deletion, I am OK with the draftifying. Charlie (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know, Charlie. Your opinion is important. Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shiv Ram Singh Inter College

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

Marked for notability concerns 3.5 years ago. Unreliable sources used. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 8 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! 05:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Also did not find significant coverage. Hogo-2020 (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough to support the article. - Indefensible (talk) 19:33, 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 speedy delete per WP:G5 for Ajit Singh Bhati and Shambhujit Singh Bhati as article created by a Bensebgli sock with no significant contributions from others; and redirect to Dadri for Dargahi Singh Bhati. Abecedare (talk) 18:10, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ajit Singh Bhati

Ajit Singh Bhati (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 mention of them in the sources cited in these articles. One source is the book of an academic named Javaid Rahi, who is not independent because he is a Gujjar academic who only writes praise in his publications. Second, it is unknown whether these kings existed or were imaginary. Some such articles were created in the last two to three days using the Gazetteer as a source, but there is no mention of these names in it.

This nomination is also for:

You can see a short discussion here on my talk. DreamRimmer (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello,@DreamRimmer@Hey man im josh I have made some improvement and I have putt many references from independent sources/ Reliable sources written by various different writers please check the article pages that you have taged for deletions including Dargahi Singh Bhati, Shambhujit Singh Bhati, and Ajit Singh Bhati.
I think these articles do not meet the criteria for deletion, as many reliable sources have already been added. أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything significant in these sources either. DreamRimmer (talk) 03:30, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer Okay, sir, no problem. I'll always try to do my best, and other editors can also do their best. But if you think your first claim has not been cleared, as you said such characters are imaginary first, and you also said these pages are entirely based on the work of Javaid Rahi, I have already cleared these claims by putting more than 4 to 5 references from independent and reliable sources, so there should be no more excuses because such sources have been written by different writers that have nothing to do with these characters, so such claims do not meet the criteria for deletions of the articles of Dargahi Singh Bhati, Shambujit Singh Bhati, and Ajit Singh Bhati. أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Spiderone
@أسامة بن عبد الله وليد
@Scottywong
Oppose the deletions Request = Do not meet the criteria for deletion as this page has multiple primary sources and secondary sources exist on the article pages of Dargahi Singh Bhati and Ajit Singh Bhati and shambhujit Singh Bhati. 103.172.167.25 (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck sock !vote. Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2023-06 ✍️ create
--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all: Now that sources have been added verifying that they really existed, they are presumed to be notable per Wikipedia:POLITICIAN. --StellarHalo (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Dadri is wrongly mentioned as a princely state in the three articles, although it was an estate. And the subject of this AfD (Ajit Singh) was its muqarraridār, i.e. he occupied it by paying a fixed revenue rate to the British.
As of now, Dirk H. A. Kolff's source is the sole reliable source cited in these three articles. It has nontrivial coverage about Ajit Singh Bhati, but Shambhujit Singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati have a combined coverage of around 5 lines in it (see p. 149). So it seems these two don't need standalone articles and should be covered in some other article. Maybe for now a paragraph about the Dadri estate can be added in Dadri#History where both of them can also be covered/redirected. The Kolff's source doesn't mention their surname as Bhati. So all three pages are needed to be renamed as well.
Some details about Javed Rahi's unreliable book

The Javaid Rahi's source is cited in all three articles. But it is edited by Javaid Rahi, a Gurjar activist who specialises in Kashmiri languages. So he is not even a historian. More importantly, the author (Rana Ali Hussan Chouhan) of the cited pages was not even a scholar. He was a civil engineer belonging to the Gurjar caste himself. So this is a non-scholarly and non-HISTRS source, which is not reliable for history-related details. BTW, the details of the author (Chauhan) are mainly available on Gurjar promo sites, although his nephew also mentions in this interview that Chauhan was a civil engineer in Pakistan Public Works Department. Note that the 400-plus pages of Rahi's book, i.e. pp. 243–728, are authored by this Gurjar engineer. As expected from a nonscholar, the content is full of fringe theories, e.g. Kolff's source mentions (on page no. 151) that the subject of this AfD (Ajit Singh) died in 1812: "On 4 October 1812, Rao Ajit Singh died without issue." But as per Chauhan (see page no. 590), Ajit Singh took part in the Indian Rebellion of 1857: "Raja Ajit Singh had a vast territory but he was not granted a ‘Treaty Pact’ so Bhatis revolted vociferously in 1857. Consequently Raja Ajit Singh died fighting."

The rest of the sources are century-old unreliable gazetteers authored by British Raj officers or the nonscholarly government documents which plagiarise those gazetteers. None of them are reliable for history-related details – see WP:RAJ, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:HISTRS.
In short, Ajit Singh Bhati seems notable, but Shambhujit Singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati should be redirected. Note that this observation is mainly based on the cited sources of the three articles and I have yet to make an independent search about the subjects. - NitinMlk (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal to NitinMlk's analysis of sources from أسامة بن عبد الله وليد and tangents about other articles signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose the false claim @NitinMlk I do respect your concern, but first of all, These articles are largely dependent on independent sources written by different writers, not on Javed Rahi's or Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan's. The second thing is that where Dargahi Singh Bhati and Shambu Singh (Shambhujit Singh) are mentioned as bhati, they are also clearly mentioned in the Quotes given from the citations. And also go and check; there are many references that Dadri's rulers were Bhati Gujjar and Bhati Gujjar clan clearly mentioned in the Quotes given from the citations, and I am the creator of Ajit Singh Bhati (also known as Rao Jit Singh Bhati) and Shambujit Singh Bhati (Also known as Shambu Singh) Singh Bhati's pages. So it's a wrong claim that Dadri's rulers were not Bhati Gujjar's second statements regarding Javaid Rahi or Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan because their references are not mentioned as first sources in the body of the article. If you have some problems with the Citations given by Javaid Rahi's book, Can be removed, but Bhati Gujjar is clearly mentioned by many independent historians. but if you have some issues why These characters mentioned as Bhati Gujjar go and read the Quote given from Refrences and also try to read these Refrences some are free or some are paid where Rulers of Dadri estate or Dadri's rulers clearly mentioned as Bhati Gujjar. Thank you so much for leaving your concern and being kind. ✝️✝️🕊️ Have a nice day Brother @NitinMlk.
أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 04:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
أسامة بن عبد الله وليد, you misunderstood my comment. All three subjects were of course Gurjars belonging to the Bhati clan. I didn't even contest that fact. My comment was about WP:COMMONNAME, which simply means that if most of the reliable sources refer to the subject of this article as, let's say, Rao Ajit Singh, then that will be the Wikipedia article's title. BTW, Kolff's source refers to him as Rao Ajit Singh, which also seems like his WP:COMMONNAME. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:40, 30 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! 05:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !votes, more arguments about other articles signed, Rosguill talk 04:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose
@Liz
@NitinMlk
First of all, there is not a single reference. From the work of Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan, then why have you mentioned his work? The second thing is that, According to your claim, Dadri was not a princely state but an estate. Does it matter or meet the criteria for deliberation? Instead of providing any reliable source, you just try to make lame excuses by talking about Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan, even though there is not a single citation from his book and his books are not reachable digitally. You also talk about redirecting these pages to the Dadri town article, but why? Why not write a new article on Dadri estate or Dadri princely state in the future by citing reliable sources? You also claimed that Dirk H.A. Kolff just talked about Bhatti Gujjar in six lines. That's not the truth. I am leaving the Reference to Dirk H.A. Kolff. Book go and Read carefully. He talked about Dadri's rulers as Bhatti Gujjar, and he also talked about Dargahi Singh Bhati, Ajit Singh Bhati, and Shambujit Singh Bhati see this Reference on pages 138, 148, 461, 462, and 641. [a] 103.191.123.67 (talk) 08:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Struck sock !vote. Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you mentioned that Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan is not cited in the articles in question. But that's not true, as he is cited in all three articles even now: see Ajit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 6; Shambhujit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 7; and Dargahi Singh Bhati's ref no. 4. All of them cite page no. 589 and/or page no. 590, which are authored by Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan.

Secondly, I never "claimed that Dirk H.A. Kolff just talked about Bhatti Gujjar in six lines." I mentioned that Kolff's source "has nontrivial coverage about Ajit Singh Bhati, but Shambhujit Singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati have a combined coverage of around 5 lines in it (see p. 149)."

Thirdly, Dadri was never a princely state. So I pointed out that mistake, as estates and princely states are two different things. You can read princely state to know more about it.

Fourthly, I mentioned, "Maybe for now a paragraph about the Dadri estate can be added in Dadri#History where both of them can also be covered/redirected." But of course if a well-sourced article about Dadri estate is created in the future, then these two subjects can be covered there.

Finally, please don't reply without reading my previous and this comment very carefully. Thanks. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NitinMlk
•1st Dear brother you're not trying to understand the base of our conversation.
First of all you're absolutely wrong and not using Comman sense that any refrences from the work of Rana Ali Hassan chauhan not mentioned in any citations at all. Brother do your research and home work again clear your confusion first or provide solid proofs that any writer mentioned in their books that they're writing about these characters by considering first refrences from the work of Rana Ali Hassan chauhan simple.
• 2nd thing is that all your false claims now have clear because Raj Era sources all I have removed.
• 3rd claim That Dadri's rulers never mentioned as bhatti this claim Also proven wrong and this article not dependent on the work of Javaid Rahi and Rana Ali Hassan chauhan totally wrong claim without any mention of these writers in the books of Dirk H.A Kolff or other Writers as refrences.
• 4th thing is that you totally try to manipulate the conversation by putting small excuses like oh! This was not a princely state but a Estate okay no problem but this small excuses can not meet the criteria for deletions.
• 5th read your previous comment again you said Dirk H.A Kolff only talk in 6 lines I have mentioned 5 to 6 pages where Dirk Kolf clearly mentioned about Dargahi Singh Bhati and Bhati Gujjar clan and Rulers of Dadri as Bhati same things also have done by all other historians.
• 6th Go and read citation research again Not any author of these books Used Rana Ali Hassan chauhan's work as first sources or they don't even talk or mentioned the name of Rana Ali Hassan chauhan.
• 7th thing is that it is not necessary to put In Dadri's town article about Dadri estate of Bhati Gujjar and by saying that you also point out that these two pages Dargahi Singh or Shambu Singh should redirect to Dargahi's town article at what bases brother?. You said because these two characters don't have Coverage in dirk Kolf or other's work you're wrong I have mentioned 6 pages from Dirk H.A Kolff's Book he talked about Dargahi Singh Bhati also Shambu Singh bhati Even he talked about Rao Roshan Singh Bhati but the link that I have provided is a paid work of Dirk H.A Kolff we can not entirely get access to his work without paying.
•8th Dadri's was an independent state established by Dargahi Singh Bhati, Ruled by Rao Roshan Singh Bhati, Umrao Singh Bhati, shambujit Singh Bhati, Amra Singh Bhati they all belonged to one monarchy and one family of Bhati Gujjar clan. Refrences given in the article will decided such characters have more or less coverage. Brother Your lame excuses like Dargahi Singh or Ajit Singh Bhati never signed a treaty with britishers etc and They paid tribute to Britishers such excuses are irrelevant here and Dadri was a princely state or just a estate also doesn't matter here. Totally irrelevant to the topic of Deletions discussion.
•9th thing you should have to accept the fact that your claims like Dadri's rulers never mentioned as bhatti have already cleared, Britishers never Singh a treaty, these pages dependent on Javaid Rahi or Rana Ali Hassan chauhan's work also proven wrong, shambu singh Bhati and Dargahi Singh Bhati don't have Coverage also proven wrong by the given refrences and RAJ Era sources triggered you so I have removed all. Brother I am leaving best wishes and love for you and also mentioning the articles of Umrao Singh Bhati, Dargahi Singh Bhati, Shambhujit Singh Bhati, and Ajit Singh Bhati these 4 Rulers belonged to one monarchy one Gujjar family of Bhati clan. Amra Singh Bhati, Roshan Singh Bhati and some other Rulers from this monarchy have not yet any articles. Have nice day 😊 brother before claims must bring solid proofs!. @Liz@StellarHalo@Scottywong أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
see Ajit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 6; Shambhujit Singh Bhati's ref no. 4 and 7; and Dargahi Singh Bhati's ref no. 4. All of them cite page no. 589 and/or page no. 590, which are authored by Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan. You're absolutely wrong here. If Javaid Rahi in his book or any other writer doesn't even talk about Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan's work/book or doesn't even mention at the bottom line of the page that these references they take from the work\Book of Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan, then on what basis are you wasting your time, Brother? Please don't reply, brother, if you don't have any solid proof that any writer mentioned that they're talking on behalf of Rana Ali Hassan Chauhan's work. Simply use Coman Sense. أسامة بن عبد الله وليد (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to ping me. This is just one of hundreds of AFDs that are open right now. What we really need is to hear from other editors. You've said your peace, let others weigh in. This is a process of consensus building, not which editor can be the most persistent. Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's have a relist not overwhelmed by walls of text from a sockpuppet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 04:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see any consensus here. But, speaking as an uninvolved bystander, perhaps a move to Draft space would alleviate some concerns about sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:08, 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 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. ✗plicit 05:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How Do You Live?

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

The disambiguation page is no longer necessary when the film had got a new English title "The Boy and the Heron". I suggest moving How Do You Live? (novel) to the "How Do You Live?" main title and add a hatnote in the article to point readers to the film. Explorer09 (talk) 04:40, 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 Calgary Catholic School District. Star Mississippi 12:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

St. Timothy High School (Cochrane)

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

The school is not notable, the entire article relies soly on the school's own website, which isn't a reliable, secondary source. Luna <3 (She/Her) (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Luna <3 (She/Her) (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Christianity. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: High schools are usually the subject of enough verifiable and reliable published sources to pass WP:GNG. After a quick search I found coverage in the Calgary Herald and another article about their new principal and added them to the article. I suspect there are more sources out there to develop the article. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I haven't been able to find anything that would satisfy WP:NSCHOOL. The notion that high schools are generally notable was discarded quite a while back. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Calgary Catholic School District. I have spent some time searching for sources, but nothing significant at this stage. It could just be WP:TOOSOON - the school is quite new, although it is heading for its 20th anniversary. All the same, it is not very large, and doesn't appear to be independently notable. Per Clarityfiend, secondary schools are no longer presumed notable, and that is a consensus view from an RfC. However, neither did FormalDude say that they were - merely that such schools are usually the subject of sufficient coverage in sources to pass GNG. This is true, but at this point I do not see that for this case. The Calgary Herald articles have limited distribution, and an article about appointment of staff at what is essentially a local school is not sufficient in itself to establish notability. I do feel, however, that a redirect is a suitable alternative to deletion in this case. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, and searching on the name of the school with the place (per the title) is a plausible search term - particularly by people in the locality. Information on this page is almost entirely on the redirect target page, and that would be a suitable landing page for anyone conducting the search. I do not see that deletion prior to redirect is required - thus page history would be preserved should more sources come to light in the future, such that this could be expanded into an encylopaedic artice. As it may just be TOOSOON, it is entirely possible that such an article could be written one day. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Sirfurboy. IMO this is a better way of organizing schools coverage in general, if only because it affords a much less inviting target for the various kinds of abuse that school articles are traditionally subjected to. At any rate it seems like a substantially better approach here, where there really doesn't seem to be sourcing currently available that could support more than a permastub. It can always be spun back out later if sufficient source material is located. -- Visviva (talk) 03:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nominator: Not going to !vote for obvious COI reasons, but I would support a redirect per Sirfurboy and Visviva. Luna <3 (She/Her) (talk) 05:15, 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 redirect‎ to Bones (TV series)#Main cast. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Montenegro

Angela Montenegro (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)

Sadly, as much as I love Bones, this character is not notable, and the article must be brought here. There are no good sources for the character. QuicoleJR (talk) 03:44, 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 keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vedran Mimica

Vedran Mimica (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)

Ultra-short article on a Croation-Dutch architect. I suggest redirecting to Berlage Institute per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. gidonb (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, Croatia, and Netherlands. gidonb (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, the article is a stub, but it can be expanded from the corresponding article in Spanish, es:Vedran Mimica. Surprisingly, there is no corresponding article in the Croatian Wikipedia, although a search for his name there does get a few hits. See also Google Scholar at https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Vedran+Mimica&btnG= The Library of Congress authority page refers to these references, although I'm not sure what they are:
  • Randić & Turato, 2000:t.p. (Vedran Mimica)
  • Suvremena hrvatska arhitektura, 2007:t.p. (Vedran Mimica) p. 654 (b. Zagreb, 1954) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick Google search brings up some mainstream media coverage in Croatia, such as a 2017 interview in Globus (weekly) and a 2013 interview in Slobodna Dalmacija "Plus" (whatever that section or edition is), so there might well be WP:POTENTIAL. --Joy (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe it will be helpful to summarize my recent nominations/edits. The NN creator of these articles was recently nominated by another editor. Not by me. After the article she wrote on herself, she created articles on her study friends and spun off their projects into seperate articles on their architectural firms. I only nominated these unjustified spinoffs. For this friend, who is just a NN person that has a job, she created a twoliner. In other words, nothing surprising about there not being an article on Hrwiki. For yet another friend she created a longer article that I only cleaned up. As always, I just reacted to what I saw in the articles and elsewhere to the best of my judgement. No spite or mass nominations. I will also not argue for any of the suggested resolutions. Just doing my WP chores. gidonb (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He's appeared numerous times in mainstream Croatian newspapers to the point of passing GNG. Needs improvement, not deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 21:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as some references have been added since nomination and no one has responded to the nominator's suggestion of redirection. But being a short article has never been a valid reason for deletion by itself alone and no other deletion rationale has been offered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Liz: I find your relisting comment strange, as no one has supported redirection apart from the nominator, and it clearly passes WP:GNG. If you look at the AfD history, the nominator posted and then removed something which said "deletion was never the issue." I respect the work you've been doing relisting and closing these discussions, but why not just close this? SportingFlyer T·C 16:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because I look at every single open AFD every day and I wasn't thinking clearly when I wrote my comment. It's late where I'm at right now but I'll review this one again in the morning. #EditingWhileSleepy Liz Read! Talk! 09:03, 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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Vivekanand International School and Junior College

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

Lack of notability, almost zero reliable sources mentioning this school. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Education, Schools, and Maharashtra. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First two references are passing mentions, not indepth coverage. Third reference is an alumni portfolio. Not sufficient to establish the school's notability. JoeNMLC (talk) 01:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Probably notable for the performance of its cricket teams as well as its other strengths. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:53, 9 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! 02:12, 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 keep‎. However this does not preclude a merger conversation happening. It just means consensus will not develop to delete this, and therefore doesn't require continuation of the AfD. Star Mississippi 12:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!: The Movie

Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!: The Movie (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)

Originally moved to draft space but was recreated in main space, fails WP:NFILM, no good results came from WP:BEFORE. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Philippines. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit like for part 2, also currently discussed, it could be a Keep (the film was apparently a commercial success: "the expensively produced but totally wasteful (of talents and film and running time) "Okay Ka, Fairy Ko," was the top grosser at P31 million." or here: "it is very disconcerting and will give you a bad headache").-MY, OH MY! (mushy yank) 11:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble finding a bit of trouble with finding independent sources about the movie. If we can find critical reviews from reviews and add them to the article, that should be sufficient. The review you linked from Google Books seems to brief to count as substantive. Enervation (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a keep for me (shameless confession: I've watched this as a kid and the lines at the ticket queue was crazy and, however you look at this, it was a famous/notorious movie then and now). But I understand why it would be really difficult to find (online) references for this. This is a relatively old movie, and not many Philippine news companies (newspapers, TV or radio) have their archives searchable online, let alone contemporary issues at the time this movie came out. --- Tito Pao (talk) 14:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Okay Ka, Fairy Ko! franchise. It's a 40th FAMAS awardee film but there's little material to work with online. --Lenticel (talk) 00:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NFILM per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I get that some people have nostalgia for this film but the article has no reliable sources to establish notability (IMDb doesn't count nor do passing mentions). Is this Award considered notable? I'm relisting this discussion for another week but if there aren't usable sources located over the next few days, this discussion will either close as Delete or as Merge to Okay Ka, Fairy Ko!.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:07, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Liz: FAMAS Awards can be considered similar to the Academy Awards. --Lenticel (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the box office success and the mini review ("it is very disconcerting and will give you a bad headache"). DareshMohan (talk) 18:02, 21 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! 01:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sadou Bah

Sadou Bah (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 WP:NACTOR. No major roles in notable films or television shows and sources are spammy. DanCherek (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Absolutely no evidence of notability per Wikipedia standards. A web search finds nothing but self-promotional fluff, and the source noted above was clearly forged. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Same content is also at Draft:Sadou Bah by same editor. If mainspace is deleted, I recommend nuking draft as well. When a good-faith editor feels like writing about it, they're welcome to do so. DMacks (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. It was already declined at draft, and then the same editor simply created it at mainspace. DMacks (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the sources cited in the article reek of "pay to publish" placements. Roles and coverage don't support notability under WP:NACTOR, nor is there sufficient coverage for WP:GNG. (Oddly, the article makes no mention of Bah being a poultry "entrepreneur", which is mentioned in many of the sources. It also misgenders Bah in the lead.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it would be appropriate to point out here that the page's creator is blocked for misrepresenting sources. Deckkohl (talk) 13:52, 20 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! 04:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Antonio Da Silva High School and Junior College of Commerce

Dr. Antonio Da Silva High School and Junior College of Commerce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of reliable sources, most sources are user generated content Ratnahastin (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep established in 1851 it is 172 years old.As per WP:NEXIST offline sources are bound to exist for such an old institution.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very old, and seems to be mentioned in lots of old directories, which might be usable sources for its history, although they don't count for much in terms of notability. More importantly, it was the site of a major terror attack and there's lots of coverage of the school regarding that and subsequent closures of the school ([37]). Its sports teams also seem to be somewhat notable, participating in most of Mumbai's major school-level tournaments ([38], [39], [40]), and there's also some random coverage ([41], [42], first source is a bit questionable). Overall, the coverage is somewhat spotty, but that's because schools in India aren't usually reported on by local newspapers like they are in the US, and the age really makes it unlikely that this isn't notable. AryKun (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to reassess new sources added to the article. Does the deletion rationale still fit?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Pharaoh of the Wizards. Okoslavia (talk) 08:41, 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 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! 01:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dewayne Dwyer

Dewayne Dwyer (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)

Six official appearances for the United States Virgin Islands national football team. Unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:11, 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 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! 01:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Goodwin

Zachary Goodwin (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 United States Virgin Islands national football team. He is not known to have continued playing past his college career. I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage on the subject from third-party sources, failing WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:02, 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 delete‎. While promotional tone could be fixed editorially, consensus is depth of sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 12:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lord

AfDs for this article:
Edward Lord (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)

Unclear why this person is notable, doesn't pass the criteria at WP:BIO. No depth of coverage. Lots of minor positions such as local councillor or chair of various committees, but nothing that would automatically grant notability. cagliost (talk) 19:42, 14 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) 21:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Necrothesp (except for the bit about Who's Who) --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 05:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being selected for an entry in WW is certainly an indication of notability. Not on its own, but contributory. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the criteria at WP:ANYBIO, an OBE is not particularly significant honour. UK "Who's Who" is somewhat selective, but it is not the Dictionary of National Biography. Given Lord's lack of "widely recognized contribution" or achievements, I'm just not seeing the notability. There are loads of non-notable local councillors with OBEs and entries in "Who's Who".
At present, the article is just an extended CV, just a listing of positions held with no accomplishments or analysis. I'm thinking WP:TNT and WP:JUNK. cagliost (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lord is a trans activist and been involved with disputes over trans women using the "ladies pond" at the Hampstead Heath Ponds.[43][44] He was forced to recuse himself in a hearing over a trans worker's dismissal. [45] Also, some articles in the Daily Mail which of course aren't encyclopaedic references. WP:DAILYMAIL: variably reliable, reliably sensational.
I still think the sources for the article are sufficient.
-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.:, the Guardian and Inews sources you provide just have the same brief quote from Lord in his capacity as chairman of the relevant committee. These are Wikipedia:Trivial mentions, not examples of coverage of Lord as a trans activist. Given that, I don't think the Telegraph story is sufficient on its own for notability. cagliost (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @A. B.:, could you clarify what you mean by "Keep per Necrothesp (except for the bit about Who's Who)"? Given that Necrothesp says only mentions the OBE and the Who's Who entry, and says the OBE is "not on its own sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO", this appears to amount to a claim that the OBE is sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO, which clearly it is not. cagliost (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Cagliost: I think you probably need to reread what I actually wrote! You seem to have missed the first sentence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cagliost Necrothesp wrote "Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG.". I read each of the journalistic sources in the article and they do establish WP:GNG per Necrothesp. I did not read any of the other sources. Regards, --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is just a CV in textual form. There's a couple local news articles on him so notability's not at zero, but as it reads, this fails WP:PROMO and badly. SportingFlyer T·C 10:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur it's a lousy, promotional article. My understanding, though, is that if the subject is notable, we fix the article.
    I say this reluctantly as I spent 100s of hours as an admin 10-15 years ago mostly fighting spam; I always gritted my teeth at keeping notable COI articles. Now that I'm back, I still do.
    -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't think the notability is enough to keep, and the promo concerns stands. SportingFlyer T·C 20:19, 9 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! 22:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, seems to have ample sources to meet the GNG. -- Visviva (talk) 03:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, don't getting why it failed WP:GNG Gerblinpete (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete Most of the sources here are either not independent (e.g. organizations he works for or with) or brief mentions. Three of the sources that go beyond a mere mention are about a kerfuffle relating to the Football Association, and do not say much about him. The only other one I see that is substantially about him is brief and limited to a controversy that he is a Freemason. What is most telling, IMO, is that none of the sources provides biographical information, and anything in the article beyond the reporting on these two specific incidents is essentially sourced in non-independent sources. Lamona (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are a lot of citations here, but the test for WP:GNG is significant coverage and in reliable, secondary sources and that is where we fall down here. A lot of trivial and passing mentions, but little enough in depth - although WP:ANYBIO tells us "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" but then also goes on, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" - and much of the coverage in this article is relatively trivial. We fail WP:NPOL as an unelected member of various boards and committees and Who's Who is indeed not the national biographical database. (I note source 32, Andrew Gilligan's Sunday Times piece - which would potentially have been a strong source - has been taken down - and source 24, seemingly a strong Telegraph piece, is in fact a letter to the editor) And while there was indeed a whiff of controversy over lobbying, we have WP:1E... All of which adds up to the fact that we do, indeed, have the CV of an accomplished candidate for a non-executive directorship of a nice, public company - but ultimately I don't think there is a clear-cut case for this gentleman to be considered notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments/response: (1) WP:1E addresses the question of whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. It does not contemplate that we would have a notable event and a person involved in it, and not have an article on either. So if 1E applies, and presuming that we are not going to have an article on the Resignation of Edward Lord or whatever, then 1E would suggest that the article on the individual should be kept. (I would preemptively note that I'm not actually convinced that 1E does apply here, and also that WP:BLP1E does not apply here at all for the reasons explained at WP:LPI.) (2) As a technical note, I believe the above citation to ANYBIO is actually meant to go to WP:NBASIC. (Which is good, since ANYBIO wouldn't actually apply here AFAICT.) (3) Absent some indication that a piece was taken down for substantive flaws, I am not sure why that would have any repercussions for our use of it here. It makes verification harder (the Wayback Machine only has some teaser text), but the hard copy of the Times is presumably still out there somewhere. (4) As NBASIC itself implies, there is a substantial gap between "not substantial" and "trivial". The best analysis of what a "trivial" mention is can probably be found at WP:GNG, which describes non-trivial (i.e. significant) coverage as having sufficient detail that no original research is needed to extract the content. So if we were trying to piece this guy's life together from the various articles where he was quoted in passing as chair of the Inclusion Advisory Board, that would be a legitimate case of sourcing an article to trivial mentions. That doesn't seem to be what's going on here: articles like this and this, which are entirely devoted to the Wikipedia article subject, might still arguably be less than substantial, but they are certainly more than trivial. -- Visviva (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still don't think he quite meets WP:GNG or other notability criteria. Had a minor role in the Richard Scudamore business, and mentioned in other news stories, but most coverage isn't about Lord in their own right. The story about him being a freemason is perhaps the closest to coverage about him, but even that is primarily an attack on his campaigning organisation by a newspaper opposed to their campaign (and hence only incidentally about Lord), rather than detailed coverage about Lord qua important person. With a bit more press coverage you might claim it cumulatively adds up, but he's not done any particular thing to make him notable. --Colapeninsula (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Atypical third fourth relist due to the late swing toward deletion coupled with continued spirited counterargument from keep !voters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - close but no cigar. Mostly as per Alexandermcmnabb. This man seems to just miss all the criteria and in such a way that adding all the near misses together still doesn't quite do it. Ingratis (talk) 07:49, 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 Narada Productions. Liz Read! Talk! 04:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Flamenco!

Viva Flamenco! (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 compilation album. Promotional lead copied from label's website. Fails NALBUM. The external links are related to the artists and not this album, and they do nothing to establish notability. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Narada Productions: Found no additional coverage. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 21:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per QuietHere. The Narada Productions article didn't mention this album or its friend until just now, but I have added them to the list of compilation albums there. IMO if these are redirected it would be ideal to merge the refs -- I have not done so yet, however, to avoid any appearance of short-circuiting the outcome of this discussion. -- Visviva (talk) 04:32, 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 redirect‎ to Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#Recurring cast. Liz Read! Talk! 00:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bodie Olmos

Bodie Olmos (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:NACTOR; none of his roles are significant enough. Being the son of Edward James Olmos does not make him notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. The Film Creator (talk) 00:41, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2023_July_15&oldid=1166682267"