Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 21 August 23 >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluca Palmiteri[edit]

Gianluca Palmiteri (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)

Former footballer, 10 minutes in Serie A and 15 games in the Italian fourth division as a professional before going down to the amateur leagues in 2011 and presumably retiring soon afterwards. Subject lacks independent in-depth primary sources [1] and therefore fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The closest thing I could find to SIGCOV is [2], which is essentially a paragraph about his career history before joining this particular club, so I'm not 100% certain that qualifies (could still easily be considered routine). Even if it does, that's just one source for now. Also worth mentioning that I had to translate that as I don't speak any Italian. Leaning towards delete unless someone who is perhaps more well-versed in Italian or offline sources from this era and region uncovers something more substantial.
SmackJam (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2022 (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 undeletion of these articles. ✗plicit 23:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union at the Maccabiah Games[edit]

Squash at the Maccabiah Games (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Squash at the Maccabiah Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 00:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stena (walrus)[edit]

Stena (walrus) (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)

Extent of notability unclear Mooonswimmer 22:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As far as I'm concerned, subject passes WP:GNG, with coverage in multiple reliable sources which are already used in the article. HenryTemplo (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are several sources available on it (though arguably not that many in English), including this one (in Dutch) which isn't in the article yet, as well as this very indepth one (in German). There probably are some Finish ones, too, but I have no idea how to find them XD --LordPeterII (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is significant coverage of this subject. Passes WP:GNG. NMasiha (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • clear WP:NOTNEWS delete Something that appears in a bunch of news reports over a few days and is never heard about again is a textbook case of a lack of notability. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not sure, if another walrus before Stena ever made it all the way through the Baltic Sea to the Gulf of Finland. She very likely was the first ever.--20:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Just fyi, @Kresspahl, your post above wasn't signed properly. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There also seem to be several in Finnish, although they are sometimes using the "placeholder" name ("Hamina's walrus") before she was called Stena. See for example here and here. I can only assess so much using google translate, because Finish. But for notability concerns, we should consider all languages. If any Finns are reading this, feel free to elaborate on what sources in your gibberish language are available ;) --LordPeterII (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the sources in the article and offerred above are news reports. In the absence of any other sources (such as books or academic papers) saying what was guessed at above (that this was the first walrus in the Gulf of Finland) this looks very much like a news report, rather than an encyclopedia article. Why don't we just wait and see whether such sources materialise rather than create an article based on such primary sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 22 August 2022 (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 Draft:Jean Dawson. Liz Read! Talk! 02:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Dawson[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, articles in Variety and NME, some music industry pub, 100k+ google results. Andre🚐 05:11, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Essence as quoted and this from MTv [3] seem to indicate notability for our purposes. Interview/mini feature in Variety [4] Oaktree b (talk) 01:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: gets regular coverage from major pubs (NME + DIY for a start). Article needs a lot of work but is absolutely salvageable. QuietHere (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that Draft:Jean Dawson exists and while it also needs work, it's got info that this article lacks. Would be good for a merger. QuietHere (talk) 23:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider possibility of merger with Draft article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG, but also endorse the suggestion above to merge with Draft:Jean Dawson.--IndyNotes (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: draft has a serious lack of sources but the info's all been written out and I think at least a significant amount can be sourced so it's worth saving what's there, plus it's just more filled out than the article which needs way more prose. QuietHere (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 00:32, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Williams (rugby union, born 1995)[edit]

Morgan Williams (rugby union, born 1995) (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 lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Wales. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, he played for Wales in the 2018 and 2022 Commonwealth Games Rugby sevens tournaments,[5][6][7] This tournament is listed in Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Rugby union as indicating that significant coverage is likely to exist. Verbcatcher (talk) 15:09, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Finding GNG passing sourcing is difficult here given the commonness of his name, especially in rugby regard, with a couple of other Morgan Williams' effecting searching, but given the competitions he's played in in rugby sevens, I believe there will be enough GNG passing coverage out there for significant coverage to be found. I'll try and do a more in depth search when I have the time. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are assertions of GNG but the evidence is thin. I'm going to relist this for another week to see if sources exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I had to repair some dead links in the article, but these sources verify that he did indeed play Sevens for Wales in the World Rugby Sevens Series, which means that he meets WP:NRU. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A discussion on whether to merge this with the draft or vice versa does not require continuation of this discussion since there's no case being made for outright deletion Star Mississippi 03:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simba Nagpal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Simba Nagpal (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)

Actor does not meet WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Draft article exists, so AFD is the only option. Ravensfire (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the current article is inadequate, but a brief search indicates that there is probably sufficient coverage in mainstream media to meet WP:SIGCOV. One article in The Indian Express,[9] which is considered 'generally reliable' (WP:INDIANEXP). Three articles in The Times of India,[10][11][12] which is considered to have a reliability 'between no consensus and generally unreliable' (WP:TOI), but it might be adequate for supporting notability. One article in Hindustan Times,[13] not discussed in WP:RSP, but it looks reasonably reliable. Two articles in Eastern Eye,[14][15] not discussed in WP:RSP but it is a UK-based weekly newspaper that looks reliable. These articles have significant content on Simba Nagpal, not just 'name checks'. I have only looked at websites linked to English-language newspapers, as I find it difficult to assess the reliability of showbusiness websites and I don't understand other Indian languages. There is likely to be sufficient reliable media coverage because he has a main role in a long-running drama series on a major TV channel. Verbcatcher (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Verbcatcher , Are the sources you cite considered reliable? Some sources only mention Naagin 6. The rest of the sources are mentions of Fitness, Monsoon. Such sources every local artist gets coverage. PravinGanechari (talk) 06:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PravinGanechari:, I am not an expert on the reliability of Indian newspapers or websites and I have never visited India. I have indicated where these sources are mentioned in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Beyond that, my assessment of the sources is based on an assumption that newspapers and websites that are restrained and analytical in tone are more likely to be reliable than those that are more sensationalist in tone. It does not matter here whether these sources are mostly concerned with Nagpal's appearance in one show; I am trying to assess whether the WP:SIGCOV test is met rather than looking for sources to expand the article. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also I looked at the Wikipedia articles on the sources linked above, which indicate that these are well-established sources that are likely to be staffed by professional journalists, and are not 'clickbait' sites that simply copy text from elsewhere. Verbcatcher (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anything related to film or television in the Times of India I would throw out for notability. Paid articles are a problem there, especially around film/television where studios use them to push shows and actors. I'll try to go through the sources in more detail, I know several were pretty bare mentions at best. Ravensfire (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravensfire: The Paid news in India article indicates that this is not unique to the Times of India, and it appears to relate more to business people and their businesses rather than to actors. Can you provide an internal or external link this specifically addresses the issue for film and television? The issue has not led to TOI being classified as 'generally unreliable' or worse in WP:RSP. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Start with the Paid News section in the main Times of India article [[16]]. "where politicians, businessmen, corporations and celebrities can pay the newspaper and its journalists would carry the desired news for the payer", "TOI began the practice of "private treaties", also called as "brand capital", where new companies, individuals or movies seeking mass coverage and public relations". TOI is still generally regarded as reliable, but around tv/film, reviews are decent but the puff publicity is pretty much disregarded for notability. What is and is not paid for? TOI makes it impossible to tell and it's widespread enough that you cannot trust that anything from them is independent. Ravensfire (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the archived WP:RSN discussions at 287#Times of India RFC and 320#The Times of India. These do not support your assertion that "you cannot trust that anything from them is independent", although a contributor to the second discussion made a distinction between the main newspaper website and their ETimes website, where the links above are. If you think that Times of India and/or ETimes should be considered unreliable for certain types of content then please start a discussion at WP:RSN. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first discussion was NOT in favor of option one, generally reliable. It was between 2 and 3, which basically summarizes the points I've been making. The second RSN discussion was about political articles. Unless I'm really confused, that's not applicable here. I'm done here, I'm clearly not going to convince you and it's not worth the effort to try anymore when you're not looking very deep at the points you present. Shocking - another poor quality article related in Indian TV/Film with poor sources and paid journalism will stay. Why do I even bother. Ravensfire (talk) 05:02, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not react so defensively when someone challenges your assertions. I was attempting to discuss the reliability of the TOI sources, where your assessment does not match WP:RSP. The second RSN discussion is about non-political matters, see its first posting. You wrote earlier that you'd try to go through the sources in more detail – have you assessed other sources that I linked? These are not "pretty bare mentions" but are articles about Nagpal. Have you made a Google News search? There are thousands of results, but you probably need to be selective to find the reliable ones. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually interested about the "sockpuppet" accusation. Already ready with my popcorn. Waiting for the final verdict XD Rejoy2003 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The actor has leading roles in his both shows as required according to WP:NACTOR. Pri2000 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there is little in Draft:Simba Nagpal that could usefully be added to the main space article W:Simba Nagpal, the main difference being the unsourced 'Early life and education' section. So either keep the main space article and delete the draft article, or move the main space article to draft space, overwriting the existing draft. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As said by some of the editors above, that the actor has significant coverage and notability. He has done several shows and is currently into a leading role in a famous hindi television series. Lastly the article can't be merged with it's draft as it seems to be deleted by a major contributor. Rejoy2003 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are a number of different options suggested here. I'm surprised to see this back at AFD so soon after its first nomination but I guess it didn't stay a redirect for long.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I also feel that the actor should be on article page as said by some of the editors above, he has his own significant coverage and notability. Currently working in Popular Channels show and also appeared in some reality shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ShokLionYt (talk • contribs) 08:39, 26 August 2022 (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 23:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Centre[edit]

Minor Centre (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)

Unfortunately there just doesn't seem to be anything notable about this shopping centre. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a directory of shops and if those were deleted, nothing would be left. The only source just tells us there was a fire, not anything about it. I have tried to find a better reference for the fire but haven't been able to. The only links to the page are from shopping centre list categories and user pages. Pity, but I can't see there is anything to go into the page that would bring notable references. There isn't really any material to merge into another page. Ed1964 (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a wikilink to the page from Grove Green but that sentence would stand fine without.Ed1964 (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Nothing notable about this one. Ajf773 (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2022 (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. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:41, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nyemba[edit]

Nyemba (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)
  • Maybe a paragraph could explain about the Namibians eventually call all angolan by the name Nyemba because of the greater proximity from Namibia and the regions of Ganguela in Angola.

Brazilians call all asians Japa, but this is not relevant like Namibians call all angolan Nyemba Jvbignacio9 (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arupa[edit]

Arupa (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)

Page is a one line stub and has been since its creation in 2008. The only information on the page is that it is the antonym of rupa, which has a full article of its own. There is no evidence that there is any encyclopaedic topic to cover here and wiktionary is the appropriate wiki project for listing antonyms and word definitions. I don't think a redirect to rupa makes sense as there is no evidence anyone would wish to search for arupa. I note the citation to Arupa-loka on the page is about something else that would be covered in the loka article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or merge with rupa and expand name (like Apollonian and Dionysian) and redirect both. Actually the information is rupa (formless) is antonym of rupa (form) and describes formless (ideal/mental/spiritual, latter not said yet) in Hinduism: being Atman/Brahman (atman is spirit and Brahman is The Divine) and similar usage in Buddhism (though removed Atman/Brahman, usually retained manas/mind, described with formless aspects). Arupa is used in Hindu (including Sikhi, Ayyavazhi offshoots), Buddhist, presumably also Jain Dharmas' philosophy as many such articles on their astral/mental/spiritual ideas already show: should they be listed/categorized, or what?--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk 02:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable topic and lack of reliable references. I found historical references online for "Arupa Jhana" a Buddhist term that refers to four successive levels of meditation but this is not that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arupa is where that takes place, as India philosophies/religions' own rupa article denotes and shows it's already notable for a long time!--dchmelik☀️🕉︎☉🦉🐝🐍☤☆(talk 04:20, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not being an independently article-worthy topic or a particularly plausible search term for a redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For billions idealists/mentalists/spiritualists (in sense of mental reality, not mental tricks) and dualists who focus more on ideas/mind/spirit than the atomic/material/physical, arupa is of much more interest/worthiness and plausibility to be searched for than rupa. It's likely the two subjects should be combined.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 06:16, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of more importance for our purposes is what reliable sources say about this, rather than what you say, although (for all we can know) you may be the leading world expert on the subject. Cite sources for what you say and then people might believe you. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider possible merge or redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I oppose merge simply because there is nothing here to merge. There is no encyclopaedic subject. I don't think a redirect to rupa is necessary nor particularly useful but I am aware they put little load on the servers so would not oppose one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2022 (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 03:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Children of Eber[edit]

Children of Eber (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)

Page has been unsourced and orphaned for nearly 14 years. The article itself seems to just be copy-pasted bits from the Bible, I doubt it even qualifies for WP:N. Zhomron (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Draft: The content is not written in the Wikipedia tone and it needs lots of structural changes and verification because it doesn't even passes WP:GNG. It might be a notable topic, but currently the article doesn't pass the notability criteria. After moving the draft, the editors can make the required changes, and then it can go through AfC. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Text is almost incomprehensible and offers multiple generalized points of view without a single source. A full delete, however, seems wrong here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft and heavily revise as people have suggested. Also if it is to exist as an article it ought to have some kind of contextualization and explanation of how this concept is understood or discussed in recent years or centuries. agree with above, somewhat incomprehensible at the moment. Dan Carkner (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify not sure why that was not the immediate answer to the unsourced article. Bruxton (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2022 (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. ✗plicit 23:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Penn Kemp[edit]

Penn Kemp (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)

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a writer, not making any properly sourced claim to passage of WP:AUTHOR. The notability claims here are that she served as poet laureate of an individual city and unsourced claims that some of her work won unspecified awards -- but municipal poets laureate aren't "inherently" notable for that if they don't have other notability claims alongside it, and the "award-winning" criterion in AUTHOR looks for major national awards on the order of the Griffin Poetry Prize or the Governor General's Awards, and does not just hand an automatic inclusion freebie to every writer whose article has the word "award" in it somewhere.
And for the sourcing, this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources with the exception of a single (deadlinked) news article in a hyperlocal community weekly in her own hometown, which is not enough coverage to claim that she would pass WP:GNG.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced considerably better than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep coverage exists to show that the person is notable. Bruxton (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Douglas[edit]

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

No indication that subject meets WP:GNG. No sources located on a search. No appropriate list or parent article to redirect to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Museum Pachten[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable museum. Briefly mentioned in a local guidebook ([24]), and only newspaper coverage located appears to me local. No wider WP:AUD-compliant coverage located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Jahaza?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough museum, just needs further expansion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A small provincial museum that is mostly known for its collection of relics from Contiomagus, which is a notable topic all on its own. But now and then a newspaper discusses an exhibit, artifact, event or staff change. E.g. [25], [26], [27], [28]. The museum has been noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2022 (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of contemporary repertoire for guitar[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for big lists of repertoire, especially when vaguely defined as "contemporary" and containing no citations. This page could theoretically contain thousands upon thousands of entries, as it is such a wide topic. Right now it currently consists of a bunch of redlinks of non-notable composers and listings of minor pieces by actual notable composers. Unlike a discography or a list of a person's works, large repertoire lists of a very popular instrument helps no one. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:19, 22 August 2022 (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 23:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yola people[edit]

Yola people (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)

Yola was a real dialect of English, but there is no evidence that its speakers constituted a distinctive ethnic group. The term "Yola people" is practically absent from reliable sources, and the article appears to rely largely on original research. Zacwill (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rishab Anandraj Jain[edit]

Rishab Anandraj Jain (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 there are sources present in this article, they are either not mentioning the driver at all, or all in all still fail to meet WP:NMOTORSPORT. I do not believe this driver is notable enough to warrant his own article (yet). H4MCHTR (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rishab has achieved podium in the 2021 Radical Cup Korea, Asia's first and only one-make prototype series. Racereditor98 (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That still does not make him notable enough to warrant his own Wikipedia article. It is pretty clear to see that there is nothing to write about him yet, only completely unsourced speculations (like planning to run Formula One in 2026). Wikipedia is not the place to detail plans of what individual people aim to do in six years time. H4MCHTR (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yeah nah, this is one of the easiest, most straightforward delete votes I've ever seen here. Formula 4 backmarker with zero claim to fame, very poor sourcing (as well as unsourced statements) and absolutely no indication of meeting WP:GNG, or even coming close to it. MSport1005 (talk) 20:46, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Lacks any indication of notability. 5225C (talk • contributions) 04:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Does not pass notability at all, an F4 backmarker with poor and few references, as well as significant unsourced claims. DRYT.Motorsport (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2022 (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, as sources were added. (non-admin closure) —VersaceSpace 🌃 10:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Tracy (band)[edit]

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

No inlines or traditional refs. The ELs that "serve" as refs are press releases, the band's website, and the band's profile on the record label's website. Tagged as an advert for a decade, notability concerns for seven years, weasel words and unsourced for over 13 and 15 years. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. —VersaceSpace 🌃 18:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The band also has one album article, three EP articles, and two song articles. Some of those items reached the indie charts in Australia, which can help the discussion about the band's notability, at least. If the band's article is deleted, we will have to do something with all those other articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 11:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doomsdayer520: I was going to yell A9, but the articles assert some importance, so I say we add those articles to this nomination (which I won't do without agreement from other users, since the articles are on differing topics). The items charting weakens my rationale a bit, however since it occurred in the indie category I don't think notability for the subject could be presumed. —VersaceSpace 🌃 19:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article has been updated and multiple reliable independent secondary sources have been provided, sufficient enough to demonstrate notability, in accordance with WP:MUSICBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Content and IRSes have been added in last few days. It passes WP:BAND criteria #1, #4, #11.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2022 (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. ✗plicit 23:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Haas[edit]

Linda Haas (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)

Submitting as AfD in response to recommendation from RfC. Subject of this biography of a living person does not appear to meet notability guidelines for academics or authors. As an academic, Dr. Haas appears to be accomplished, but no sources indicate she is substantially more notable than a typical professor at a research university in her field. As an author, she has contributed to three academic books that appear to only have received mention in the associated professional journals, which, again, could be expected of any professor at a research university. nf utvol (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Social science. TJMSmith (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: meets WP:AUTHOR based per the multiple scholarly reviews of her works. TJMSmith (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As well as the pass of WP:AUTHOR already stated in my earlier unprod, she has Google Scholar citation counts of 390 ("The impact of taking parental leave on fathers' participation..."), 356 ("The impact of organizational culture on men's use of parental leave..."), 325 (Equal parenthood and social policy...), 271 ("Fathers' rights to paid parental leave in the Nordic countries..."), etc. These high citation counts give her a likely pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a pass of WP:NAUTHOR criteria #3 due to the multiple independant significant reviews of her work, even without looking at citations. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment WP:AUTHOR is not the appropriate criteria to use here, since all of Dr. Haas's work appears limited to academic writing. Regarding the reviews cited as evidence for keeping, quoting from WP:ACADEMIC:

    "In some disciplines there are review publications that review virtually all refereed publications in that discipline. For example, in mathematics, Mathematical Reviews, also known as MathSciNet, and Zentralblatt MATH fall into that category. The mere fact that an article or a book is reviewed in such a publication does not serve towards satisfying Criterion 1. However, the content of the review and any evaluative comments made there may be used for that purpose."

    So, the existence of the reviews is *not* enough to meet the criteria. Regarding citation counts, Dr. Haas does *not* appear in the Highly Cited Researchers list, though, while it's a good rubric, it is not all inclusive and the lack of inclusion is not criteria for exclusion necessarily. And while those numbers do seem to be high on the face, when compared to other authors and similar articles in the field they are pretty average. For instance, when looking at the related articles of the first article referenced above, "Impact of parental leave...," the range of citations is from under 100 to over 700. nf utvol (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I struck your "delete" as you have already provided an opinion as nominator and are not allowed to !vote twice in an AfD. In response to your comment here, this is an encyclopedia of everything, not of everything except academia. There is no exception in AUTHOR for academic work. The application of AUTHOR to academic works is necessary to allow coverage of academics in subjects where book publication is the norm and journal publications and citations are uncommon (although in this case Haas has both). As for your listing of databases like MathSciNet that provide reviews of all publications in a field: that's not how published reviews in individual academic journals work, so the text you quote is about something irrelevant to this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for striking that! I meant to remove it before I posted but messed it up. I completely agree that AUTHOR does not necessarily exclude academics, however in this particular case the subject is entirely covered by the guidelines brought up in ACADEMIC. It seems to me that applying AUTHOR to every published and reviewed professor or researcher at a university would result in almost every single one being published, which doesn't make for a great notability guideline. I would also argue that my note about the review publications is, in fact, still appropriate since the journals listed in the article appear to all have routine reviews of most books published in the field. nf utvol (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The note about review publications is about databases which index everything. A journal that selects a few dozen books per year and reviews only those is not a database that indexes everything. It is selective. Unlike many non-academic review publications, they do not even review everything specifically sent to them for review; many of these journals have a "books received" column listing a much larger set of books that they have received but decided not to review. Nothing in ACADEMIC covers academics whose scholarly contribution is entirely through books and is entirely evaluated through book reviews (which is an accurate description of many academic disciplines). It is a loophole in ACADEMIC, but one that is adequately covered by AUTHOR. Your made-up and nonexistent rules about how academics are a special exception to AUTHOR would eliminate that. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no reason to be rude...I just do not think that the AUTHOR guidelines are appropriate here, and I've simply tried to explain why. On the other hand, you're clearly free to disagree and explain why I'm not correct. I appreciate your input and insight, I absolutely encourage it, but I'd also appreciate it if you didn't just casually toss out the accusation that I'm trying to make up rules, because that is not what I'm doing. nf utvol (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nfutvol I was surprised to see WP:NAUTHOR applied in this way when I first started participating in AfDs too, but you'd be surprised how many academics even in "book fields" don't have 2+ books with 2+ reviews. It does actually work pretty well. I don't see a WP:NAUTHOR pass here either, though. -- asilvering (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No position on WP:NPROF #1, since I'm not sure whether these citation counts are high for the field or not. But this is not a WP:NAUTHOR pass, at least not based on the sources currently in the article. Only one of the books, Equal Parenthood and Social Policy, is a monograph. The other one with footnoted reviews is a co-edited collection of scholarly essays. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm persuaded that the subject's publications have been highly cited. The case for wiki-notability by the multiple books with multiple reviews apiece standard is weaker, since as noted above, one of the reviewed books is a co-edited collection. That's a lesser investment of time and effort than writing or even co-writing a book, but it's not nothing, either. Between the reviews and the strong citation profile, I think keeping the article is justified. XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Appears to satisfy academic notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:Nfutvol - Do you have a problem with female professors named Haas? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Haha, no, though I see how it could appear that way. I did a GA review for an article that led down a rabbit hole of professors that appeared on the surface to be of questionable notability. I promise I don't have a weird thing about people named Haas! nf utvol (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NACADEMIC. Her books and "articles" (some of which are book chapters but I see them as the same thing) get cites in the 250-320 range. That's sufficiently high for what is a narrow topic of parental leave in Sweden. Lamona (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keepers. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: @TJMSmith: Due to an error I have corrected in Special:Diff/1107260123, Enterprisey's delsort script did not actually list the nomination at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Social science. The nomination has now been listed there. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks GeoffreyT2000! TJMSmith (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep satisfies WP:NACADEMIC Bruxton (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public IT System[edit]

Public IT System (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 term, WP:NOR PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, inclined to agree. When I see an opening of "concept proposed by..", it already has me skeptical and assessing previous revisions of the page (albeit not now live) lead me to conclude this is non-notable original research that is not suitable to be an article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:FORUM. The concept as described is not notable. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 22:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 03:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Uma Parameswaran[edit]

Uma Parameswaran (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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a writer, not properly sourced as passing WP:AUTHOR. The only attempted notability claim here is that her book "won several [unnamed and unsourced] awards for short fiction", which isn't an automatic notability freebie in and of itself -- "writer notable because award" only attaches to major literary awards on the level of the Governor General's Awards or the Giller that get media coverage to establish the notability of the award, not to non-notable small-fry stuff, but the Asian Heritage in Canada source ascribes the book with the "New Muse Award" and the "Canadian Authors Association Jubilee Award", which are both minor awards that aren't notability clinchers.
And for sourcing, two of the three footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all (i.e. a "staff" biography and a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person), and the only marginally acceptable one (Asian Heritage) isn't enough all by itself to claim that she would pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to have a more significant notability claim than just winning non-notable awards.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to have much stronger notability claims, and much better sourcing for them, than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find this article about her: [29] but it's paywalled. That's about all I can find, nothing in GScholar (seems to be a rather common name though). She's the subject of more than a few chapters here: [30]. Unsure of notability...Oaktree b (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - my initial online search finds: So far, yet so near (The Hindu, 2013, "Anu Kumar examines the works of two early Indian English writers, Uma Parameswaran and Victor Rangel-Ribeiro."), The Raman wife effect: lively recollections (The Hindu, 2014, "If you have ever wondered about the life of a cerebral celebrity, then Uma Parameswaran’s biography on Lokasundari, Sir C.V. Raman’s wife would qualify as a breezy read. The author is Raman’s grand-niece."), A review of Maru and the Maple Leaf (Montreal Serai, 2019, "Uma Parameswaran, a retired professor of English (University of Winnipeg) and well known author with a special interest in women’s literature and South Asian culture, has cleverly crafted her recent novel around the writings and experiences of Maru, an Indo-Canadian woman from Winnipeg."), The Problem of Immigrant and Nastalgia (sic) in the Novel of Uma Parameswaran’s "Dear Deedi, My Sister" (Contemporary Literary Review India, 2019). I plan to also review the WP Library. Beccaynr (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AUTHOR#3 due to the multiple reviews of her works, e.g. via the WP Library, Pereira, L. E. (2019). Between Two Cultures: Uma Parameswaran’s Sita’s Promise. Language in India, 19(3), 82–85 (EBSCOhost); Quilting a New Canon: Stitching Women’s Words Uma Parameswaran. (1999). NWSA Journal, 11(2), 199–201 (JSTOR); Rao, S. N. (2002). What Was Always Hers Uma Parameswaran. World Literature Today, 76(1), 136. (JSTOR); Gerein, J. (2003). Mangoes on the Maple Tree Uma Parameswaran. World Literature Today, 77(2), 91. (JSTOR); Perry, J. O. (2003). Sisters at the Well Uma Parameswaran. World Literature Today, 77(1), 96–97. (JSTOR); Hariharan, B. (2000). Kamala Markandaya Uma Parameswaran. World Literature Today, 74(3), 585. (JSTOR); Rao, S. N. (1999). Sons Must Die and Other Plays Uma Parameswaran. World Literature Today, 73(2), 344. (JSTOR, includes some career information); Kaushik, M. (2016). Negotiation of Home and Homelessness: The Immigrant in Uma Parameswaran’s Poetry. South Asian Review, 37(1), 117–130. (EBSCOhost); Uma Parameswaran: A Cycle of the Moon. (2011). World Literature Today, 85(5), 73. (JSTOR, capsule); Niven, A. (1986). The Commonwealth in Canada: Proceedings of the Second Triennial Conference of the Canadian Association for Commonwealth Literature and Language Studies Uma Parameswaran. Research in African Literatures, 17(3), 435–439. (JSTOR, includes career information); Hashmi, A. (1985). The Commonwealth in Canada: Proceedings of the Second Triennial Conference of CACLALS, 2 vols UMA PARAMESWARAN. Journal of South Asian Literature, 20(1), 250–252. (JSTOR); McLeod, A. L. (1984). The Commonwealth in Canada: Proceedings of the Second Triennial Conference of CACLALS Uma Parameswaran. World Literature Today, 58(4), 669. (JSTOR); Perry, J. O. (1989). Trishanku Uma Parameswaran. World Literature Today, 63(3), 537. (JSTOR); Mitchell, P., & Khankhoje, M. (2003). MANGOES ON THE MAPLE TREE (Book). Herizons, 17(2), 35. (EBSCOhost); The sweet smell of mother's wilkwet bodice (Globe and Mail, 2001, via Gale); Robbins, W. (2002). THE SWEET SMELL OF MOTHER’S MILK-WET BODICE (Book). Herizons, 16(1), 36. (EBSCOhost); Uma Parameswaran (Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors, 2007). I have not yet reviewed ProQuest. Beccaynr (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also via the WP Library: Raman Effect Minimal (The Indian Express, 2011, via Gale); The Great Man & His Aberrations (Tehelka, 2011, via Gale); The other side of science (The New Indian Express, 2013, via Gale). Beccaynr (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    via ProQuest, e.g. Mittal, B. (1998). Exploring the immigrant experience through theatre: Uma Parameswaran's Rootless but Green Are the Boulevard Trees. Canadian Theatre Review (94) 1998, 32-5. Retrieved from ; Mendis, R. (1989). Parameswaran, Uma. (Trishanku) // Review. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 21(2), 147-149. Retrieved from ; Dabydeen, Cyril. (1990) Parameswaran, Uma. (Trishanku) // Review. Journal of Canadian Poetry Vol. 5: 98-100. Retrieved from ; Jussawalla, F. (1990). Asia & the Pacific -- The Perforated Sheet: Essays on Salman Rushdie's Art by Uma Parameswaran. World Literature Today, 64(1), 200. Retrieved from ; Pandey, M. S. The Trishanku motif in the poetry of Sujata Bhatt and Uma Parameswaran. In (pp. 225-38) McLeod, A. L. (ed.), The literature of the Indian diaspora: essays in criticism. New Delhi: Sterling, 2000. pp. xvii, 289. Retrieved from ; Bhattacharya, Swagata. (2021) Re-defining 'Can. Lit.' or 'Indian Writing in English'? English Writings and the Indian Diaspora in Canada. Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics Vol. 44, Iss. 2: 191-198. Retrieved from. Beccaynr (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to the very convincing explanation by Beccaynr CT55555 (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 14:28, 24 August 2022 (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 23:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Josef Lindauer[edit]

Josef Lindauer (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 skier. A WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up any third party sources to establish notability, doesn't really come close to satisfying WP:GNG. I would support redirecting to Military patrol at the 1936 Winter Olympics, as an alternative to deletion. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 16:56, 22 August 2022 (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. It's a fairly weak keep, but it's a keep. WaggersTALK 14:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Loofball[edit]

Loofball (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 sport, maybe too soon, maybe it'll never be notable but there is virtually no meaningful in depth coverage. PRAXIDICAE🌈 12:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evidences suggest the sport is relatively young but significantly popular in Nigeria as it is already accepted and taught in schools across some parts of the country.--Joesmithroots (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It appears in Vanguard, which is a national newspaper in Nigeria, however that's the only mention I can find in a reliable source. Chagropango (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Hi Chagropango please check additional sources in the reference section. Thank you! Joesmithroots (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review! From my findings, however, the sport has been steadily gaining momentum in Nigeria since its inception and is cherished in many parts of the country. Joesmithroots (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the main source in question here is a feature on Loofball on Nigerian Television Authority. As for the other sources they don't appear to meet notability guidelines. I don't know if these two mentions are enough to establish notability, but the coverage on NTA appears to be in depth and reliable. Chagropango (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:50, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep or Draftify It may not have extensive reliable coverage, but it has some. There is also an official website for the sport trying to promote it and many mentions in non-reliable sources. I'd be willing to let it go, sport seems popular enough, maybe too soon. For all the poor quality articles from the African continent we see at AfD, this one isn't fake or trying to sell us something. I'd be ok if draftify it, it really only needs one more reliable source to get a "pass". Oaktree b (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Their official site isn't even close to qualifying it for an article. The fact that it exists is also irrelevant, I would oppose any draftification unless someone can identify actual in depth coverage that establishes a modicum of notability (in which case, draftify is still moot because if it were notable, the article would exist.) PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or a redirect to "sport in Nigeria", could be an interesting subsection there also. Oaktree b (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi please check the revised article for additional source (no. 6) and changes. Joesmithroots (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Check sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 16:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah! A controversial AFD. Time to bring out my old friend a source assessment table.
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Loofball Official Site No Owned by Loofball company ? Yes ✘ No
Topend Sports ? No Appears to be user generated content. Yes ✘ No
Vanguard ~ Consists partially of interview with creator of Loofball Yes Vanguard is assumed to be a real newspaper No Appears to only briefly touch on Loofball - is mostly about efforts to promote sporting in education ✘ No
NTA Yes Yes Yes ✔ Yes
Loofball Official Site See above See above See above ? Unknown
The Nation ~ Consists partially of interview with creator of Loofball Yes The Nation is an established newspaper Yes ~ Partial
Prezi ? No User generated content ? ✘ No
Afritalenation ? No Appears to be a self-published blog ? ✘ No
Basic Loofball Coaching Manual No Official rules of game Yes Yes ✘ No
mea-markets ? ? No Not about loofball ✘ No
FuNDAMENTAL LOOFBALL GUIDE FOR SCHOOLS No Made by LSDI, who are effectively the subject ? Yes ✘ No
Error: a source must be specified ? I could not access this source. Sorry. ? ? ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Between The Nation and NTA, I see enough to justify a (weak) Keep, but I would prefer to Draftify because another good source would really cement this article. casualdejekyll 19:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify. It's received one decent piece of coverage in NTA and something a little less concrete in The Nation. We only need a little more coverage to firmly meet GNG and it seems moderately likely this will emerge in the coming months. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2022 (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 Mech Mice#Mech Mice: Genesis Strike. History is under the redirect if anyone wants to merge more than what ReaderofthePack has done Star Mississippi 03:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mech Mice Genesis Strike[edit]

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

A book that appears to fail the WP:GNG and more specific WP:NBOOK. There are no valid reliable sources included in the article, and I have been unable to find any kind of coverage or reviews at all. I was also unable to find out any information on the listed publisher "Spearhead Books", and it may have actually been self-published. I had initially considered simply WP:BOLDly redirecting this to Mech Mice. However, the book is not mentioned there so a Redirect would not work, there is absolutely no valid sourced material here so a Merge would be inappropriate, and the actual game appears to have extremely dubious notability itself. So, in the end, I decided that Deletion would actually be the most appropriate course of action and brought it to AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 16:00, 22 August 2022 (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 Mancala#In popular culture. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gebeta (video game)[edit]

Gebeta (video game) (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)

Sources are either press releases or not significant coverage. No better sourcing found * Pppery * it has begun... 23:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Most sources in the lede best covered the notability of the game; for example, [31] and [32] are likely credible sources and described the content of game releases, gameplay, publisher and developer. Most sources could pass WP:NVG as they are largely published by independent, variable sources that could build reliability and verification. The Supermind (talk)
The Supermind WP:NVG is an essay, and you also ignore two things from it: "Commentary should be critical and detailed" (not the case with the first source you posted) and "Independent sources must not be primary sources, press releases" (the second reference literally has a "press release" tag at the top, in case the way of how it's written wasn't a good enough tell). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless better sources can be found/shown. Currently it fails WP:SIGCOV. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Supermind. There are reliable sources for this game and I believe it passes WP:SIGCOV. If there is a valid merge target I would also consider that to WP:PRESERVE this. Archrogue (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Such as? The source you added is still not WP:SIGCOV, as it says nothing more than "this game exists. It won an award." * Pppery * it has begun... 19:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: Do you read about The Trent Online. It is an Internet Newspaper from Nigeria and the game was adequately covered by Mitchel Jordon. I think this one is not like press article, read as a newspaper. What do you think? The Supermind (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict × 2) Pointing to sources that were already in the article at the time I AfD-ed it is not convincing because I already read them and decided they weren't sufficient before starting this AfD (as, presumably, did Zxcvbnm before !voting delete). The article you pointed two is not significant coverage, just a routine announcement. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The current refs are non-SIGCOV or RS, IMO, and fails WP:NPRODUCT, which IMHO should be required for video games. Ref 1 is a short, non-notable press release; even the ref, with an iffy about us page, probably isn't reliable. The same is true with ref 2, which is clearly marked as a press release (non-significant). Ref 3 is also non-significant, covering the publisher with a 1-paragraph coverage (SIGCOV needs at least one long paragraph); the source might be an RS but lacks any editorial policies, either way, it's not significant. Ref 4 is another duplicate of ref 1. The 5th ref list a minor award called AppsAfrica Awards, IMO, an award could be considered notable if it has a WP page (this is kind of criteria for WP:NWEB) which this lacks. The ref for The Trent refs, which is somehow duplicated for ref 6 and 8 with the same URL and content, is more convincing but still a press release, IMHO, same with ref 7, explicitly marked as a press release in the ref section. Ref 9 is also a trivial mention. So, with none of the refs being significant (not even considering their lack of reliability), even WP:GNG isn't met, not to mention WP:NPRODUCT, so deletion is the best IMO. VickKiang (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Pppery: I found new website named "Shega" that details about the game. In its information page, the website described itself as independent reliable source that reads as "We produce high-value articles, analyses, reports, visuals, and a weekly newsletter." What do you think about it? The Supermind (talk) 09:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Supermind: Apologies again, but I just don't think, unfortunately, that this article is notable enough right now, despite it being very interesting. For WP:NPRODUCT guidelines, we need refs that are significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. Significant needs much more than a press coverage, but this feels to be a routine annoucement (IMHO, if we had at least one review from a reliable ref, together with these more trival coverage, the article's notability is borderline, if there're 2, I'd vote weak keep). But this is mainly quotes from the publishers, sadly. Secondly, only having an about us page isn't enough. Its about us page isn't bad at all, and at least it provides team info, but there's no editorial policies as far as I can see, the latter very important in differentiating a SPS and an established ref. IMHO, a RS needs to at least have its editor-in-chief or editors to appear in a couple of other RS, I just did a quick search, and couldn't find any. So, IMHO the website is not straight-cut reliable. With reliability borderline and SIGCOV not met, IMHO this ref isn't enough, but if you could find one or two long, reliable reviews, I'd be happy to vote weak keep. Many thanks and have a nice day (or night, depending on your time zone, of course):) VickKiang (talk) 11:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the excellent research by VickKiang above. I further did searches of all the sources on WP:VG/RS and found literally zero sources unfortunately. It's a shame, because it seems like a really interesting subject for an article and I don't begrudge recreating it if more sources are written, but for now, it's a clear delete !vote. Nomader (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomader and VickKiang: Finally I would like to support the deletion, there is no clear RS with significant coverage in the web and I searched thoroughly and the article entirely covered by press releases and more RSs cover the company of the product rather than for itself. But I hope I would like request for restoration after sources are available in the future. And also I would create a page for Qene Technology. The Supermind (talk) 10:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass our notability guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Mancala#In popular culture, per WP:ATD. Sources are sufficient to say in a broader article that this exists, but do not support independent notability. BD2412 T 04:58, 31 August 2022 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional characters on stamps of the United States[edit]

List of fictional characters on stamps of the United States (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's fairly routine coverage of a lot of the individual stamps being released, but aside from a little bit of coverage when the first fictional character got on a stamp, I'm not finding much of anything treating these as group or unit. Fails WP:NLIST; we don't need to have a list for everything. Hog Farm Talk 15:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Lists, and United States of America. Hog Farm Talk 15:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and transwiki) - It seems like a rather arbitrary personal pet project rather than anything backed by sources or necessity. Seems like it's just following the trend of lists of people on stamps, which is probably its own rabbit hole to explore, but I don't see much utility other than satisfying basic curiosity. I don't know if there's a Fandom wiki dedicated to stamps, but this should probably be transwikied there or somewhere to at least make sure it is preserved. TTN (talk) 17:32, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the nom. Pahiy (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't have any reliable sources and coverage cannot be found to meet WP:NLIST. Jontesta (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2022 (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. Star Mississippi 03:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsider this deletion by verifying the sources. 103.240.96.23 (talk) 04:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saptarshi Gayen[edit]

Saptarshi Gayen (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)

Winner of an award with questionable notability; while there are some reliable sources sited, none have any depth whatsoever, just photography credits or brief mentions. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, if you are a notable photographer, I assume having a lot of reliable sources citing your photographs is probably what cuts it. Feel free to tell me if you know about photography that I am wrong. Andre🚐 05:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : Questionable notability, promotional activity, lack of "suitable" sources
  • The article is created entirely for the purpose of self-promotion. The article creator User:Rivugayen is the person himself (see article history and user's contributions across wikimedia). The tone is non-neutral, most of the content is original research (autobiographical) lacking any source.
  • Of the 21 media outlet urls cited, about 5-6 sites are mentions of a single photograph, the rest are just photo credits. None has any depth as already mentioned above.

Also, "Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article."-WP:BLP

  • As for Notability: only acheivements are winning a couple of awards, I could not find anything of significance about the person on the web. The awards aren't "exceptional" and this does not count as "Significant coverage". The awards themselves are of questionable notability, a good many number of photographers win the awards every year, we do not need seperate articles about each of them solely on the basis of those. Vulpes-bengalensis (talk • contribs) 11:39, 28 August 2022 (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 14:09, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jozef Hlavco[edit]

Jozef Hlavco (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 athlete. No medal record, and WP:BEFORE search doesn't bring up any third party sources. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 13:49, 22 August 2022 (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. Consensus to delete is clear. Several want to redirect, but there's no agreement on where to redirect. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bricherhaff[edit]

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

Subject appears not to be a "small farming settlement", but a single farm. No evidence of notability apparent in the article, nor do there appear to be any reliable sources about the farm in question. CMD (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect WP:Alternatives to deletion, I don't see why we can't redirect it to Contern, the name appears multiple times in the article. N1TH Music (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bricherhaff could also be redirected to Brichermillen as after all, both the mill and the farm are owned by the same farmer and Brichermillen has some sources and was originally moved to draftspace and was accepted when submitted for review. A section can be added to it about Bricherhaff. N1TH Music (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the relevant Contern article content nor the Brichermillen article appear to have any reliable sources mentioning this property. (Brichermillen may potentially have one significant reliable source in Erpelding 1981, but there is no indication it mentions the property in question.) CMD (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That can be fixed, it's all about coordination, we see a problem (Non-notable article) and we should try to fix the problem, it's a quick job to add a section to Brichermillen about the farm next door literally owned by the same person. N1TH Music (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not if we don't have reliable sources that support both the relevant content and its due weight. CMD (talk) 17:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll find some then, and have Brichermillen ready for the incoming redirect by tomorrow and since nobody is taking part in this discussion I don't see why we can't redirect immediately afterwards. N1TH Music (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Actually Brichermillen already had "A few hundred meters northeast of the mill lies the Bricherhaff. Both buildings are owned by the same owner. Bricherhaff is on a separate road spur and is also atop the Syre." written within it's lead segment, is that not grounds for a redirect? N1TH Music (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "Not if we don't have reliable sources that support both the relevant content and its due weight." CMD (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please don't start redirecting every farm to a village, it isn't worth mentioning anywhere. Fram (talk) 18:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fram but then why when I proded Kangani, Moyotte you redirected it to an article which mentions it by name once in a long list of other places. And stated "Redirect instead, WP:ATD, and easily verifiable that it exists (but hard to tell a lot about it)" and you redirected Eitermillen to Contern, so why is this any different? N1TH Music (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there is evidence that Kangani really is a village, with mdntions like here[33] or more clearly here. Eitermillen should be deleted, I was too kind when I redirected it. Fram (talk) 07:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fram Really? These places exist, obviously, they are Lieu-dits if you look at List of populated places in Luxembourg it has Eitermillen and Bricherhaff and I didn't at them to that list.
    Lieu-dits are distinguished from towns and villages by their signage, instead of a yellow sign indicating one is entering the place, there is a white one, both Eitermillen and Bricherhaff have photo evidence of this signage, here and here.
    Also as a side-note I agree with you that the article in their current form certainly don't belong here. But I also think there is room for improvement, maybe real sources can be uncovered. I searched google books for the search term "Bricherhaff" and some books, documents and directories came up, there is potential however little it may be. That's why I think we should redirect it because that removes the time limit for improving the article. When I'm no against the clock I can thoroughly check through my sources and create a good finished product. Like the Wester Pipe Railway or Brichermillen
    N1TH Music (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Brichermillen is not a good finished product, it has only one potentially good source. Wester Pipe Railway has four supposed sources, two are blogs, one is literally a stock photo, and one is Google Maps (although the reference is written in a way that hides this). The assertion regarding redirects is bizarre, a redirect not existing doesn't mean someone can't look for sources. However, I would suggest leaving it alone either way if you think the sources on Wester Pipe and Brichermillen are good. CMD (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant I think the writing is good and it beats everything sourced to openstreetmap which I wrote at times. In my CIR discussion one editor said I "did a pretty good job" writing the wester pipe railway. I haevn't actually looked at it recently but I've just heard 1 or 2 good things. Besides my fact checking and source finding work now is way superior to what it was when I wrote, well Anything because I only started adopting it when I searched for sources for Blackslough and compiled them here I haven't written any new articles yet, nor have I properly expanded any of my old creations as I had intended to. Just the 2 article I listed, 1 I was told to create and I never heard a complaint about it and the other was submitted through AFC and accepted. N1TH Music (talk) 09:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Be that as it may, they have between them maybe one source demonstrating any sort of notability. You may register that as a "complaint" if wanted, and I highly recommend not citing them as good products if you are actually seriously trying to learn how to contribute content here (and not on say, Wikivoyage). CMD (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, you have a good point. I guess if I want to demonstrate that I can make a good product, I should actually make a good product. Tell me if I create a good article, will that make WP:CIR concerns diminish slightly. Can I prove I know what I'm doing? N1TH Music (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A better course of action would be to heed the advice Ovnius has already given you on your talkpage. CMD (talk) 09:42, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But that doesn't help me in the short term, I've made a couple edits here and there like he told me to. N1TH Music (talk) 09:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails GNG and GEOLAND which clearly states: Census tracts, Abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Abadi=rural locality. Bricherhaff is a very small private farm that is about .5 km long. My driveway is longer than that. Atsme 💬 📧 02:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atsme Bricherhaff may be an Abadi but it is commonly recognised, all the locals here know it by name and I know that's just hearsay but then there's evidence that the Commune of Contern recognises Bricherhaff as not a farm but a settlement. There's other farms in Contern, such as Heederhaff, but heederhaff is located within the town of Contern and thus Nobody recognises it a settlement. The issue brought up here is important, but couldn't it be solved by finding more sources? this article doesn't seem as hopeless as Faerschthaff was. N1TH Music (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bricherhaff Farm is not a settlement. It is a privately owned, small farm in a rural area where a family resides, and owns all the buildings.
  • Redirect tp Brichermillen as suggested above. If it's regionally well-known, even with no sources, a redirect isn't the same as an article, so notability criteria don't apply. Also, redirects are harmless. If there are no hits on the redirect after a year, we can delete it easily. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Anachronist, please reconsider the underside of redirects which is quite the opposite of harmless as evidenced by this discussion. Redirects can be and are reverted, and sometimes flipped by a user dodging AfC, possibly by a UPE. This article's log shows it was a successful PROD that was later recreated by N1TH Music, then it was draftifed and again, recreated by N1TH Music. The article is/has been a time sink, and there are other similar non-notable articles created by that same editor that need reviewing. Atsme 💬 📧 22:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Atsme: I disagree. A redirect can be edit-protected. In fact, if the name has been repeatedly recreated and this AFD is closed as redirect, the logical thing for the closing administrator would do is protect it. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Anachronist, but I align with Fram on this one (and we rarely agree) because I also hope we don't start redirecting every small farm to a village, especially one that's only getting around 2500 views/year which is less than my UTP has gotten in a month. I added a picture of the farm so you can visualize what the redirect is actually for; i.e., a small, private farm. Atsme 💬 📧 02:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to have exactly the same issues as the articles discussed at ANI back in June. The Brichermillen article also seems to have similar issues; it seems to be largely OR based on map websites. The only source that might confer notability (Erpelding, 1981) doesn’t seem to be available online, so unless N1TH Music posts some quotations there’s no way of knowing whether it amounts to significant coverage. Brunton (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What about a redirect? N1TH Music (talk) 09:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See what CMD has posted above. What does Erpelding 1981 say about Bricherhaff? Brunton (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't check at the moment, but if I get back to you with evidence from that book or other reliable sources will that change your vote? N1TH Music (talk) 11:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on what the sources say. Brunton (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just some random farm, no evidence of notability, not even worth a redirect. Avilich (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given its mentioned on a road sign that may be enough to mention it (and redirect to) its municipality Contern. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Said[edit]

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

The article was nominated for deletion a month ago, soft-deleted after a low-participation discussion and then restored at request of the article creator, so this is a return AfD nomination. The subject is a working film technician, as confirmed by various of the references which name-check his participation in functional roles (e.g. ref. 2 (SANA), 6 (eSyria), 7 and 8); some other refs (4 & 5) are about a film rather than this person; the best of the references are the Kuwait News Press item and paragraph in the Safirpress item, but these are still just describing a working person, without evidence of attained WP:NFILMMAKER notability. AllyD (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Very clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Chagropango (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some short of English language references but the person looks notable as per Arabic available resources.. And it feels this individual's article under attack. some one wants to make it down intentionally. In the meantime let search few more references.StyleArt (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:GNG. Producers and similar behind-the-scenes film workers are a dime a dozen. We have deleted hundreds of similar articles, from around the world, and of various nationalities and religions. I see nothing that makes this person extraordinary. Bearian (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wireless Conference Microphone[edit]

Wireless Conference Microphone (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)

Proposed for deletion, but ineligible due to a previous WP:PROD. Proposer’s concern is “Unsourced. Not a topic in and of itself, just some adjectives attached to the word microphone.” Already adequately covered at wireless microphone. Not suitable for redirect as it will need to be moved first due to WP:NCCAPS. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 13:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. My thoughts are the same from 4 (!) years ago when I PRODed the article. Unsourced, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary or how-to guide. I thought about redirecting it but the name is too specific for an adequate retarget. Jip Orlando (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a microphone, wireless or not. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2022 (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 Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics. Star Mississippi 03:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Karel Buchta[edit]

Karel Buchta (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 skier. No medal record, and WP:BEFORE search didn't bring up any third party sources to establish notability. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Would support a redirect to Military patrol at the 1924 Winter Olympics as an alternative to deletion. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 13:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Star Mississippi 03:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MATTE Projects[edit]

AfDs for this article:
MATTE Projects (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)

Might have qualified as WP:G11 but am bringing here for discussion instead. Non-notable production company, likely WP:UPE. A loose necktie (talk) 07:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 13:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a company/organization therefore WP:NCORP guidelines apply. We require multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and containing "Independent Content". As per WP:SIRS *each* reference must meet the criteria for establishing notability. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. References cannot rely only on information provided by the company or execs - articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews fail ORGIND. References that focus on one of their products/events with no in-depth info on the company fails CORPDEPTH, etc.
These were the references mentioned by HRShami above, there were some others in the article as follows:
  • This from HypeBae appears to have been info provided by the company - for example, here's the same text on a different website attributed to a different journalist, questionable as a reliable source and fails CORPDEPTH anyway and probably is not "Independent Content"
  • This in VMAN is an article with info provided by an exec, fails ORGIND, and focussed on an event/festival with nothing in-depth about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This in Vice is pumping an upcoming event organized by the company, no in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This NYT article doesn't mention the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This on the Marriott Hotels website is a description of a marketing campaign involving the topic company, since Marriott are customers this is not "Independent Content", fails ORGIND, also no in-depth information on the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This in the Chicago Tribune is a mere mention-in-passing with no in-depth information on the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This is an ad for an upcoming event with no in-depth information on the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
  • This announcement in Fashion Network is totally based on info provided by the company, fails ORGIND
  • This in White Wall is a mention-in-passing with no in-depth information on the topic company, fails CORPDEPTH
None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company, most refs aren't event *about* the company and nearly all are marketing or reviews of events. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - The best source listed above is the Fashion network coverage [[42]]. I don't have a problem with sources based on interviews, since that implies the media took an interest in them, implying some notability. Nonetheless, I also looked for more sources about the company, and not just stories about the events they held, and found this funding news [[43]]. It's a small amount, and doesn't seem to be enough. WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:05, 26 August 2022 (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 Irish mythology. There is broad consensus that the topic is potentially notable, but that nothing in the present article is of any use, making it a prime candidate for some WP:TNT. But there is no consensus to delete it outright, making redirection the more consensual alternative. Sandstein 19:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Irish mythology in popular culture[edit]

Irish mythology in popular culture (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)

Pretty much identical situation (mess) as we had with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welsh mythology in the arts and popular culture. The topic may be notable, but what we have here is a 98% unreferenced list of media in which Irish mythology topics appeared in. This fails WP:OR/WP:V as a potential article, WP:IPC as well, and likely WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. For an example of how messy this is, note a bunch of examples of "media (novels, movies) in which characters have names based on Irish mythos characters", where said media has no other connection to Irish mythology (and where it's just some random editor's assumption that the name is indeed inspired by Irish mythology and not some other use or is just a coincidence), ex. "In the movie Hellboy: The Golden Army, the elven king is named Balor." or "In Borderlands 3, there is a respawnable mini-boss called Blind Banshee.". Add to it stuff like "A Statue of Manannán stands upon Binevenagh Mountain, County Londonderry.", "The British progressive rock band The Enid included an 18-minute piece titled "Fand" on their 1977 album Aerie Faerie Nonsense." or "In the film Titanic, the Irish mother tells her two children the story of Oisín and his journey to Tir na nÓg as the ship is about to sink.", and it's a wonderful example of "everything and a kitchen sink", wiki style. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture, Lists, and Ireland. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or Redirect to Irish mythology as an alternative to deletion. Four pages are given to the subject of popular reference/influence in this dictionary of Irish mythology. There's also this from St. John's University. I think this should be stripped down where sources can't be found, not deleted. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge each item which is verifiable to the pages of the specific deities and/or entities, for example Crom Cruach does not currently have a section titled "Modern influence" or "In popular culture," so create such a section and move the verifiable items there, and then delete them from the list. Once the list has been mined for all of the quality sources, delete. Chagropango (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yet another TV Tropes trivia style list that is essentially an WP:EXAMPLEFARM. While the topic itself may be notable, there is no actual discussion of any sort about it here, and no sources that would actually be useful in supporting an actually legitimate article on the topic, as they are pretty much just the singular pieces of media themselves. While the sources mentioned by Ficaia would certainly be useful for an actual prose article or section on the topic, it would pretty much require a complete rewrite from scratch as this current trivia list is all but useless for such an endeavor. Rorshacma (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG due to there being significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, that specifically analyses the impact Irish mythology on popular culture.[1][2][3][4] I agree with the concerns of the nominator about the quality of the article but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP.

References

  1. ^ Padraic Whyte (2011). Irish Childhoods; Children's Fiction and Irish History. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. ISBN 9781443830959.
  2. ^ Dawn Duncan (2012). Irish Myth, Lore and Legend on Film. Peter Lang. ISBN 9783034301404.
  3. ^ Mark Williams (2018). Ireland's Immortals; A History of the Gods of Irish Myth. Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691183046.
  4. ^ Rebecca Long (2021). Irish Children’s Literature and the Poetics of Memory. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781350167254.

SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 23:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TNT does apply. I totally assume a good article can be written on this topic. But nothing from the current one except maybe a sentence from the lead and categories seems rescuable/reusable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:GNG, as shown by User:SailingInABathTub. However, article clearly needs a stiff dose of WP:TNT. Fiachra10003 (talk) 20:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:TNT as the article in its current state is an example farm. People are welcome to write a new article, but keeping this one does not guarantee it will be improved anytime soon, if ever. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - Given the sources found, how about a compromise? Let's redirect to Irish mythology for now, okay? If someone tries to rewrite it, they will be able to access the old article in history and perhaps locate something useful. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:50, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a redirect is always a reasonable compromise, no objection. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TNT, as others have said above. The topic is notable, but I don't see anything in this article worth preserving. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this article still has no reliable independent sources, and fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NLIST. Even to the extent that sources can be found, there is a WP:CONSENSUS that this is a WP:TNT situation where it would need to be rewritten from those sources, with nothing here to WP:PRESERVE. Would accept a redirect. Jontesta (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect anything salvageable to Irish mythology per WP:ATD. There are referants in popular culture, and these should be reasonably documented. If the section grows through proper sourcing, it can be broken out again in the future. BD2412 T 04:55, 31 August 2022 (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.

Comment: I know I'm late to this discussion, but the whole purpose of this page was to divert the rampant listcruft that was disfiguring the articles on individual pages on mythological characters, stories etc. Anyone monitoring those pages, brace yourself for a renewed assault. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicknack009 Reverting fancruft is easy. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding Nicknack's point here. See talk page. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 21:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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 14:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Clinciu[edit]

Lucian Clinciu (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 ski mountaineer. No medal record, and before search doesn't show any third party sources, so doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. SPF121188 (talk this way) (contribs) 12:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional firearms[edit]

List of fictional firearms (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)

Short, probably b/c it went through some cleanups - not sufficient, b/c while some discussion on talk determined that we should keep it limited to "notable" entries, I see that about 1/4 of the entries here are redirects to article sections, perhaps b/c the entries ended up being merged/redirected. Anyway, a major concern is that this fails WP:NLIST. No references are presented that show that any reliable source attempted to list all fictional firearms. The best I can find are small comparisons like "phasers vs blasters" etc. I did find [44] but I think it's more relevant to the entry on Raygun then this list. Given the failure of NLIST, I am afraid Category:Science fiction weapons will have to do for now. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. ✗plicit 14:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Portrait[edit]

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

Nothing indicates notability here. The article only has two sources: one a listing of recordings, the other an interview with the band. signed, Willondon (talk) 12:47, 22 August 2022 (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. ✗plicit 11:26, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in India[edit]

List of hotels in India (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 is rendered unnecessary by the existence of Category:Hotels in India. Generally speaking, Wikpedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE, with a sprinkle of WP:INDISCRIMINATE BrigadierG (talk) 11:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I say eliminate any redlink not supported by a source or two establishing significance. It is useful to have redlinks to guide development. --Doncram (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's a "navigational list", then it falls afoul of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. BrigadierG (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I have a hard time with this sort of list, but I don't see how this can be singled out from among the other members of Category:Lists of hotels by country. Mangoe (talk) 03:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Depending on the result of this AfD, I'd consider a mass nomination if the consensus is relatively clear. The ultimate response to WP:OSE is to nominate the other stuff too. BrigadierG (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As with past nominations of "List of hotels in ____" for other countries, this deletion nomination should be rejected. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hotels in Nigeria is one that I can find. Here, the nominator speaks of categories existence supposedly removing reasons for having lists, which is patently false. Please see guideline wp:CLNT about how categories, lists, and navigational templates are complementary, and existence of one is not an argument to remove another. --Doncram (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just because a list is a list does not mean it is a bad-type directory. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is about providing ephemeral info like opening hours, phone numbers, etc. which are not present here.
From another perspective, some hotels are obviously wikipedia-notable (because they have articles), and it is okay to have a (world-wide) list of them, and it is okay to split that for size reasons or for editorial/navigational reasons into countries or smaller regions. A list, unlike a category, can have introduction and sources and footnotes and redlinks indicating significant ones where a future article is needed, etc. This particular list, and many other hotel ones, seems unsatisfactory to me in that they do not contain descriptions and sources and redlinks indicating gaps, but those are matters for editing and perhaps tagging, not reasons for deletion. --Doncram (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per WP:NOTDUP and having this list with images of hotels in India can give a reader a quick indication of what the notable hotels in India look like. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets our guidelines for lists Lightburst (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve if there are any issues. 103.249.233.6 (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists of hotels are OK so long as each list entry is a notable (has own article) and unique (not just a chain) hotel. There are quite a few here. Ajf773 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Hotels in India, and maintain to only include notable entries. North America1000 23:39, 25 August 2022 (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. Wikipedia has articles about lots of things that might not exist; the issue here is whether this supposed Russian insurgent group has enough coverage in reliable sources for us to write an article about them. About this, there is no consensus here. The quality of much of the discussion is poor: many people only assert that the topic is notable (or not), but what is lacking here is any serious discussion of the specific sources that the article cites and their quality. Absent such discussion, I have no grounds on which to determine whose arguments are stronger. Sandstein 19:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

National Republican Army (Russia)[edit]

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

This article is for an organization that is currently only alleged to actually exist. The only sources listed are a Guardian article reporting a statement by the Russian opposition politician Ilya Ponomarev, which explicitly states that "The Guardian has not verified the authenticity of Ponomarev’s claims", and a manifesto posted on Twitter which has been copy-pasted here in its entirety.

I think this is a case of too soon. If the existence of this organization can be independently verified by other sources, then the article has a reason to stay up. But as of yet, this is just an article based on an unsubstantiated claim of an organization that may or may not even exist. Grnrchst (talk) 09:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article deserves deletion. Sure, there are not much information about the organisation, but that's only because this organization surfaced just few hours ago. It is verified by many independent sources. They also sent out this manifesto through their official Telegram chatroom called Rospartisan. They are legit, they are true. Don't delete this page! We will update it as soon as more fact-checked information surfaces. 2A01:C846:D81:FE00:D581:C34D:D22C:9E12 (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If their existence has indeed been "verified by many independent sources", then it should be no problem for you or others to add those sources to the article. An "official Telegram chatroom" is not sufficient evidence, at best it's a primary source but it's definitely not reliable. Grnrchst (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Grnrchst I see your point and your probably right it´s too soon, but are there not plenty of articles about alleged organisations, Beings, and so on... Mr.Lovecraft (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That other stuff exists is not a sufficient reason to keep an article. Grnrchst (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes no claim it exists, it says it has been alleged to exist. It also says it has been alleged to not exist. There is a controversy. We report what the sources say on both sides there are many opinions and Wikipedia allows for multiple points of view. What's important for AfD purpose is how much coverage it gets. -- GreenC 20:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ilya Ponomarev currently appears to be the only source of their existence as telegram channel Rospartizan supposedly belongs to him. 185.252.109.200 (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No hurry to take it down and no reason. Wait and see who edits it. 38.70.156.135 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Now that the page is created, I think we should wait. The things are evolving so quickly, and new information becomes available everyday. We should wait for a certain period of time, before deleting it. As people are more likely to add the information onto existing page, than create a new one. Wiki6995 (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I have been a user of Wikipedia for many years and I really can't believe that Wikipedia is censoring by denial when Russians themselves think they can be arrested for any reason by their Government. They clearly exist, they have published a manifesto and taken responsibility for a terrorist act. One can hardly expect such an organisation to do more than they have considering the Government of biggest country in the world is after them. The manifesto is on YouTube, the terrorism is all over the world's media. Wikipedia can certainly put a caution comment at the top but to delete is censorship of the worst kind. If you do this you might as well delete my account because it will be the last time I trust or use Wikipedia. Davidpalmer24 (talk) 18:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't censorship, it's a question of notability and verifiability. Grnrchst (talk) 18:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is a bombing in Moscow notable, or verifiable? Veskers (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The bombing is, sure. Sufficient sources for an article about the NRA do not, at this time, exist. That may change by tomorrow. Or it may not. Remember, "notable" is not the same as "important". "Notable" is "has received coverage". DS (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TDLI and WP:IQUIT. Firestar464 (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They said it "is all over the world's media". It is a source-focused keep rationale which is valid. We can't expert every participant to know the rules like an expert. -- GreenC 18:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - The article is relevant, accurate, and of great public interest. The article is upfront and direct about the fact that the existence of the NRA as an actual insurgency group is not established. However, criticism of this article on the basis that the NRA may turn out to be a feint or fiction misses the point. The news event is real and notable. The attribution by Ilya Ponomarev to the NRA is real and notable. There will be many searches on Wikipedia by people trying to learn what the NRA is or is not. There should not be a search-black hole in Wikipedia on this notable topic. Wadams92101 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LOSE. Firestar464 (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They said it is "notable". It is a valid Keep rationale. That they also gave their opinion about it being of public interest is not disallowed. -- GreenC 18:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WAIT. There's definitely enough notability at the moment, and tons of major news organizations are reporting on this. The article is very clear that it is an alleged organization, and there's an entire section dedicated to the skepticism of its existence. If it turns out to be a hoax it can be deleted and rolled into Dugina's article. Janrahan (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it. We can't really expect them to publish membership lists and even the knowledge that they are new is helpful when looking up who they are. 2003:DC:B720:543:4ECC:6AFF:FE93:1F63 (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete iffy sources and could even be a hoax at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 11:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think it could be a hoax? Super Ψ Dro 11:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of sources and the fact the Guardian didn't verify the fact. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of sources is probably a consequence of current censorship in Russia. Many western media outlets left Russia near the start of the war, or were limited in how they can operate in Russia (what they can say, or their personnel in Russia would be arrested). They're probably forced to wait until Russian sources like RT cover whatever the official line is.
I don't think it is a hoax unless the original video of Dugin himself is fake, but that doesn't seem to be the case as of 08/22/2022 since western media outlets are covering the story (BBC, The Daily Beast, CNN, etc). Veskers (talk) 22:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give it a few days. I don't believe this topic will be notable but there's many important Western newspapers already writing articles on this organization. Most sources are less than 24 hours long. It would be too soon and perhaps a mistake if this article was quickly deleted. White-blue-white flag was nominated for deletion very quickly and the result was to merge, but as the discussion developed, so many new sources appeared that the topic now had sufficient coverage and was kept. Super Ψ Dro 11:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too soon. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Super Dromaeosaurus, at least for time being, until events in near future prove or disprove the group's notability. —Sundostund (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' 143.178.169.125 (talk) 12:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everything is based on Ponomaryov's claims. Until there is independent confirmation of this group's existence, it should be regarded as fictional and it does not meet notability guidelines. Mellk (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The manifesto was posted to Twitter by someone other than Ponomaryov. But even if it was it doesn't matter because so many reliable source consider his claims notable enough for publication. -- GreenC 14:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a random Twitter account, forget about WP:V. Mellk (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are reporting this story. -- GreenC 18:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I say they were not? You used a random Twitter account as a ref for the manifesto, this is what I was referring to. Mellk (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get that people are excited about a potential resistance group of some sort, but the reporting is sensationalist and we know nothing about this "group" apart from some claims by one person, which could be some SBU hoax or whatever, who knows. Just because various news sources have mentioned it does not mean it automatically qualifies to have its own article, this is not what it says in notability guidelines. Mellk (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am staying at delete because nothing has changed. HighKing also made a good point. This "group" can be mentioned in the article about the killing and Ponomarev's bio, it should not have its own article. Mellk (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mentioned in many press articles, simply search for it on Google. Those sources can be integrated into the article gradually. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because alleged things can be notable. Notability is determined by sources, not truth. -- GreenC 14:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Decolonizetheinternet (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there enough reliable sources to determine notability though? Currently it doesn't seem like there are, as all information of this organisation comes from one person. To contrast, the FSB has claimed the attack was carried out by a Ukrainian named Natalia Vovk, but there isn't an article for this alleged person. It doesn't seem like this alleged group has any notability of its own, outside of the assassination of Darya Dugina, so I don't understand why there needs to be a separate article right now. Grnrchst (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any reliable source coverage about this Natalia Vovk person? Regards SoWhy 15:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Like the alleged NRA, a number of publications have reported on it,[45][46][47] and like the alleged NRA, there is only one source responsible for this information. Given this, I don't think either are currently notable enough to warrant their own articles. The article about Dugina covers this information well enough for now. Grnrchst (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that it is only Ponomarev (exile in Ukraine) who has made all claims about this NRA, no one else has said anything, is suspicious. I would change to keep if all claims (all unverified) weren't made by simply one person. Mellk (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is poignant and should not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.4.176 (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it is possible it turns out its size and importance are being misrepresented by Ilya Ponomarev, that much of the claimed actions are not theirs, or even that the organization isn't real, the fact of the matter is that this is being reported on everywhere. It is only likely to gain notability and worldwide coverage (even if it ends up being fake). What matters most is if the topic is notable enough to be present on Wikipedia, and I would say this easily covers notability guidelines/standards. Also, to all editors citing "too soon", I would like to point out that isn't a part of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is an essay on notability by editors. That doesn't make it irrelevant or unimportant, but it is not a valid reason for removal, especially as Wikipedia articles on current events and news have become more and more common. -- SharkyIzrod (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aside from the issue of "too soon", is this subject currently notable enough to warrant its own article? Given that all reports about it stem from a single source (Ponomarev), I don't see why this currently necessitates an article separate from the one discussing the death of Darya Dugina (which itself includes other claims, from different sources, about the attacker[s]) or the one about Ilya Ponomarev itself.
    Both of these articles are much longer and have clearer notability. Nothing that's currently said in this article couldn't be easily incorporated into them. Of course its notability may change in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Grnrchst (talk) 14:57, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created a draft for the subject Draft:National Republican Army (Russia). It was clear there was not enough for an article with the limited amount of reporting. This should be put into draft space until there is more reliable information. Thriley (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with draftifying as an alternative to deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 14:58, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It is notable by virtue of the sheer volume of media coverage (both mainstream media and social media) as well as the notability of Ilya Ponomarev himself.
    Enquire (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. There is so little known about the group as of now, it might be a front or it might be the start of a serious terrorist organisation. They certainly pass notability guidelines at the very least. 78.152.254.96 (talk) 14:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/78.152.254.96 This is the 4th edit made by this user, less than a day after it was created. Dream Focus 05:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Killing of Darya Dugina. There is clearly no independent notability now. Wikisaurus (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with merging as an alternative to deletion. Grnrchst (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all clear there is a lack of notability. -- GreenC 18:03, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this should have stayed as a draft awaiting more sources/developments, while being mentioned explicitly on Darya Dugina's and Ilya Ponomarev's articles. Actually there's a good bit with sources at the end of Ponomarev's article pointing out the claims can't be verified. Narananas (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether and how it exists in reality may be debatable, but in any case it already exists as a term. Newspapers all over the world are writing about it and people are looking for information about it on Wikipedia. We cannot stick our heads in the sand. --Kychot (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The term existed for a long time to refer to the pro-Nazi Italian army National Republican Army. Mellk (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It was also used by another group in (Pakistan? Burma?). Category:National liberation armies has others with similar names.. it's like a genre. But disambig issues are not important for AfD. -- GreenC 18:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agreed. JOSDC (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON which I mentioned on the talk page of the article. This orgnization was only known to have "existed" yesterday, we know almost nothing about it, by Wiki standards this is nothing more than a rumor. Fijipedia (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    We know who their leader is, their manifesto and of a bombing they committed in Moscow which killed a woman that has/is making international headlines. Wikipedia articles have been made over less significent events and organizations. It's breaking news, yes, but are you proposing Wikipedia have a certain minimum time limit, before articles can be made? There's no rule about making a Wikipedia article on something which happens today, or "yesterday". Veskers (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. — SummerKrut 16:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. However, many readers will visit this page after reading a newspaper or watching news (TV or online) or after viewing a social media post. Readers come to Wikipedia to find an objective, unbiased assessment of all such media reports (with full citations and references).
    Enquire (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A deletion of this page in this moment is not very thoughtful. We should be able to keep this until more info unfolds. Then rewrite the page or incorporate it with the article about the war (i.e. special military operations).
    Question the page, ask for better references, but ask for deletion - that is nothing but stupidity. Red squared! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.52.6 (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a developing event/organisation. It should be available for verifiably sourced updates as they come to light. It should however also be closely monitored so that it doesn't become a sparring ground for vandalism. At the very least, placing it in a Draft holding pattern might be warranted. MelioraCogito (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the arguments of limited evidence, but that is exactly what we should be educating people about. The references discussing it are solid; it is being discussed by reliable sources. Wikipedia is here to inform. People are googling this and Wikipedia needs to inform them this is mostly the claim of a single source but it is being taken seriously by reliable sources. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 18:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the skepticism of the claims of the NRA's very existence is entirely warranted, and I feel amenable to draftifying the article if necessray. However, I would write as someone who's put time into the Ilya Ponomarev page, that it seems readily apparent that he and the media outlets he created are willing to propagandize for the group which in some ways makes it real. It is also notable that Ilya Ponomarev, a dissident parliamentarian, has embraced not only the rhetoric of the (R)NRA, but is broadcasting what amount to instructions on propaganda of the deed. I don't think he'd do that unless he's basically given the group his blessing –which is enough of a force in itself to keep the page. Evackost (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for bringing your knowledge about Ponomarev to the table. I'm still unconvinced that Ponomarev's connection itself warrants a separate article, but I appreciate you adding this perspective. Grnrchst (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This page documents an important area of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine. It should be improved, made more neutral, and made more reliable with more references, but it shouldnot be deleted. --HarmfulHurdle91 (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait More and more sources are writing about this organization and can determine its notability. If this is deleted, merge it into Darya Dugina &/or the draft article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a serious allegation legitimized by the fact that Ilya Ponomarev is a venerable dissident respected by Western intelligence. LordParsifal (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a hearsay tabloid. 172.58.203.194 (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Special:Contributions/172.58.203.194 This IP address is partially blocked already. Two of the five edits ever made by it, are the deletion vote above and a comment on the talk page. No other post made by this address this year. Dream Focus 05:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with warnings)
    The scant information will serve as call for more information/verification. Besides; Wikipedia dedicates a page to the Loch Ness Monster - a page that contains the following statement "Evidence of its existence is anecdotal, with a number of disputed photographs and sonar readings."
    The National Republican Army 'is a thing' as the kids say! 2A00:23C8:AD80:2201:58:2270:D28B:9D57 (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with warnings) The article makes clear that it is an alleged organisation; it is useful to know that it is connected with Ilya Ponomarev, and I wouldn't have known this but for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Bavington (talk • contribs) 21:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Even if this organization does not exist, it's still notable. The "Ghost of Kyiv" also has a Wikipedia page, and he's fictional. SuperSardus (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A bombing in Moscow is a major event, especially during wartime. A woman lost her life. I think it is disrespectful to the person who lost her life to deny an article documenting the organization which planned/executed it. Vladimir Putin himself is talking about this bombing, why can Wikipedia users not read about what happened and who committed it?
I don't see any compelling arguments for the article to be removed. More sources would be nice, but for obviously such a new organization is going to have limited information available. Person some material from Ilya Ponomarev's page should be added to the article, since he seems to be the group's leader currently. Veskers (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP. The fact that this probably non-existent organization may actually be some sort of cover for the assassination operation against Dugin gives it significance despite its likely non-existence.
In conjunction with the information the FSB has asserted in regard to the killing of Dugina (assuming for the moment that it is true) it suggests a motive for a possible SBU operation that would otherwise be hard to identify, to wit, an attempt to plant the idea of significant internal and violent Russian opposition. The idea of such an opposition in Russia is ludicrous, but that doesn't mean that an operation to try to promote the idea of such a phenomenon did not take place.
Keeping this suddenly-created page for the time being helps with the evidence trail. 71.178.213.179 (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This organisation claimed responsibility for at least one act of terrorism/aggression, which makes it relevant to the conflict. Currently a weak keep, give it another week and see what happens. ArticCynda (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This organisation claimed responsibility, according to Ponomarev. Mellk (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously very important to have some content on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.72.9.161 (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Darya Dugina#Killing (or any article that may arise out of that section) as it doesn't seem the group, if it even exists, has any notability outside of the assassination. I know WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to organizations, but the general principle I think makes sense in this case. ansh.666 01:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The story is still developing and more evidence could surface of this being a real organization. Even if it turns out to be fake, I believe it is still notable enough to show the organization as a made-up entity, as someone else said, the Ghost of Kyiv was a fictitious entity but still has its own article.Glakes (talk) 03:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ghost of Kyiv claims were made by various Ukrainian government officials and figures. All claims about NRA is made by one person, Ponomarev, who just lives in exile. Mellk (talk) 14:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • draftify or delete I'm seeing numerous keep responses here that are all hypothetical: it may be important, but then again, it may be all bullshit. We do way too much news-reporting-editing anyway, but as there is no deadline, this is a clear case where we can wait to publish an article until we can be sure that its subject can be substantiated. Keep it as a draft if you want, but if we can give it some time to develop and see if it does amount to something, it can spend that time in draft space or somewhere else outside the articles proper. Mangoe (talk) 03:52, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alleged entities have articles, so why not?RKT7789 (talk) 04:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The main argument for "delete" seems to be that this organization might not exist, at least not as an authentically Russian organization. Even if it exists only in Ukrainian propaganda, it is still notable and we can still have an article about it. Compromat2 (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep (with warnings), Wait or Redirect all seem like reasonable choices. If this gets deleted & then afterwards the group turns out to be fully legit, it means more work to put the page back and essentially is a capitulation to those who don't like this page's existence because it reveals an inconvenient truth. JoeWiki1969 (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 16 refs at present and plenty of fictional organisations have wiki articles. Tiny Particle (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, depending on how the situation develops I don't mind it being merged into the article on Dugina's assassination, but deleting makes no sense, as particular pieces of information in this article are worthy of inclusion. Max Semenik (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMKairos (talk • contribs) 19:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC) (copied from talk page where it was placed with the edit summary "Wikipedia is not newspaper" --SoWhy 10:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]
    Special:Contributions/FMKairos Two post ever, one at this AFD, the other on the talk page of the article. Dream Focus 05:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this should be deleted. A notable individual has alleged the group to exist in connection with a notable assassination - that much is verifiable. So if the group is mentioned anywhere it should only be on the article for said notable individual or said notable assassination, until such time that the group meets the notability criteria. 37.157.52.71 (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's just sensible to keep, to delete it would be to deny the existence of the organisation. Great Mercian (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Delete. This is apparently another non-existent organization, just like Liberation Army of Dagestan, a fake organization that suddenly appeared after another false flag operation by the FSB. Someone probably fed disinformation to Ilya Ponomarev. Or perhaps this is something remotely similar to Operation Trust. Or another Petrograd Military Organization. They do not invent anything new. The alleged perpetrator, Vovk was probably another Patsy paid by the FSB to make the travel without even knowing why. Should pages like that one exist? Arguably, they might if the non-existent organization was highly notable and widely covered in sources. Just do not say that such organization was responsible for anything on WP pages, because that means promoting disinformation. My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my vote to "delete" because this is hardly such a notable hoax, and by keeping it we are contributing to disinformation promoted by Ponomarev. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or Ponomarev is part of the cover story for an SBU operation inside Russia designed to generate the idea that there is serious (and violent) opposition to the Putin government. 71.178.213.179 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to generate such idea. There is a "serious (and violent)" opposition to Putin in Russia, people who openly criticize Putin for being "too liberal", such as well known Igor Girkin and even Dugin according to many pundits. My very best wishes (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    FSB claims to have stopped 30 terror attacks in Russia by neo-nazis. Even Russians concede there exists violent and serious opposition to Putin. RKT7789 (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't really know anything about this organisation, we don't even know if it actually exists. Their alleged connection to the killing of Dugina is the only reason why we have heard of it. It's true there are plenty of cited sources, but pretty much all of them just relay what a single person, Ilya Ponomarev, has said. In my opinion, the information about the group and the allegations belongs in the article about the killing. Also, remember that deletion isn't irreversible. If the group becomes more notable, the article can be restored. Całkiem anonimowy (talk) 19:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for confirming it is notable ("It's true there are plenty of cited sources"). Wikipedia has many articles about things that are alleged to exist eg. Nazi gold train. All we are concerned is if the topic is notable ie. "plenty of cited sources". -- GreenC 20:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, all those sources just relay what a single person has said. This isn't the case with the Nazi gold train. On a side note, this style of discussion with out of context quotes and cheap zingers belongs on Reddit, not Wikipedia. We're supposed to argue our points in good faith. Całkiem anonimowy (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has a section for sources that suggest the NRA doesn't exist. Wikipedia allows for multiple points of view. Some think it exists, some don't. We report the controversy. The sources untangle if NRA exists or not, we are reporting what the sources say on this topic. -- GreenC 20:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I came to this article thinking this is a well-established organization. The notability here is completely dubious, it fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG and most importantly WP:1E, where even the person's article to whose death this "alleged" organization has been connected hinges on WP:INHERITED. Gotitbro (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the only person in this AfD who says it fails GNG - an extreme claim given all the sources! Similar to the GNG claim, NORG is meaningless without an explanation as it meets everything in WP:SIRS. 1E is for people NRA is not a person. WP:INHERITED is simply an "argument to avoid during AfD" - nobody in this AfD has argued for Keep due to inheritance. It has nothing to do with inheritance at the content level, the essay specifically says so. -- GreenC 23:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources as to what exactly, that a claim was posted after the fact on a dissident run Telegram account using this name, does not make this organization notable regardless of excitable war coverage. 1E and INHERITED were intended to comment on Dugina from who's killing this article has been spun-off from (nothing in here which can't be merged back). Gotitbro (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gotitbro is correct, as I wrote before: The Guardian and DW do each have a dedicated article on Ponomarev's claims, but I am struggling to find this level of coverage by other RS (hence why I said mainly low-quality/tabloid etc sources), so I am not convinced about "significant coverage in reliable sources" which "addresses the topic directly and in detail" as per WP:GNG. Other RS if they mention it only give it a brief mention in their article about the killing in general, because there is nothing convincing about it. Mellk (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not every source requires to be a dedicated article. GNG only requires more than 1 source. And I find it hard to believe that every source but three (you forgot a third one that is dedicated) is a trivial mention. Much less what is found with Google, such as in other languages: Korean, Japanese, Danish, Swedish, French, German, etc.. countries all of which have an interest in this conflict and news. Do we really need to start down that road? It's a matter of common sense and quick Google searches to see how massive the coverage is. - GreenC 17:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it is simply one sentence that says something like "according to Ponomarev, the killing was carried out by a group called National Republican Army, this claim cannot be verified" and this is it, I do not think the RS is addressing the subject directly and in detail. Of course because they are not tabloids. Mellk (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it would appear that some editors voting here are coming from a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS stance, that this article being deleted will equate to purging or worse censoring and someone searching for this won't be able to find it here on WP. That is clearly not the case, anything that is here can be merged into Dugina's article (i.e. what is already not there) and WP:REDIRECTs exist. Not every minutiae about the war needs a standalone article. Gotitbro (talk) 21:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a reference page for those who seek the provenance of the alleged Russian "National Republican Army." Whether this is a real organization or a fictional one is irrelevant to whether this article exists or not. The fact is, there are copious references to this alleged organization (both mainstream media and social media) and, naturally, people will look to Wikipedia to find unbiased factual information about it; and, whether (or not) it is a real organization - or a fictional one. Wikipedia editors can therefore update this page as more information emerges and - most importantly - weigh the veracity (or not) of the actual existence of such organization.
Enquire (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (with cautionary note?) per ArcticCynda & Joewiki above. Yadsalohcin (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets our notability guidelines Lightburst (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep General notability guidelines have been met. Some of those seeking deletion have very few edits on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 05:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you trying to insinuate here, because most of the IPs/new accounts here are voting for keep, besides your lack of explanation of how it meets GNG, remember it's not a vote. Mellk (talk) 16:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came here to learn about this organisation, in terms of whether it is legit or not. The page was useful for me to determine that the organisation is noteworthy enough, even if we don't yet know if it is fact or fiction. 210.185.122.42 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LOSE. Firestar464 (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This organisation easily meets notability requirements, even if it might not exist. "It's fake" was never a reason to delete an article, or we would delete The Protocols of the Elders of Zion next. --Gerrit CUTEDH 12:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The argument for deletion claiming non-notability isn’t addressing notability but existence. A flat earth article exists. Whether this NRA does exist or not, it’s notable for an abundance of reporting on it by reliable sources. This is not the place for Wikipedia:original research on whether it exists. Rely on reliable sources for that and document. mcornelius (talk) 04:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - The verifiable existence (whatever 'existence' means) is not required for something to be notable. Moreover, the inability to verify Mr Ponomarev's claims is a separate issue that doesn't have any bearing on his making of the claims or the publication of a manifesto. Both are factual events, and the article makes it abundantly clear ('alleged', 'purported', 'cannot be confirmed') that it is not describing an organisation that has been proven to exist. The article is well balanced, factual, and well referenced, and all details are supported by existing, widespread reporting by respected outlets. 80.189.56.19 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - After having heard of the group in a video on the web, I specifically turned to Wikipedia to get an idea of what is currently known about them. Even the current status of "we currently have no information about them" is a valuable piece of information in and of itself. A non-existing page fails to unambiguously communicate even this bit of info. 2A0A:A546:3D3C:0:65ED:1864:BF8:8CB3 (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LOSE. Firestar464 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject of the article is notable, judging by the preponderance of sources. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not making an !vote, but people should seriously (I beg you) have a look at WP:ATA. Firestar464 (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the size and capability of the organisation is certainly an open question, it has provided ample evidence of its existence - hence it not only deserves, but requires, a suitably-worded wikipedia page about it. wikifiveoh 23:11, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ample evidence? Everything is still based on Ponomarev's claims, there is no verification. Mellk (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment - whether the organisation is fictitious or real, its claimed and disputed existence is widely discussed in international media from several different countries, satisfying WP:GNG. In the longer term, a merge into Ilya Ponomarev could be justified if no WP:RS'd evidence emerges of the organisation existing outside of Ponomarev's statements. The Russian Action Committee is only excluding Ponomarev from its upcoming Congress of Free Russia meeting; apparently it doesn't seem to see any point in excluding members of the would-be National Republican Army. Boud (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify/Wait per Super Dro basically, there is no need to jump the gun on subjects on this website and I feel editors fall into this trap too much. We are not the news so there is no need to be hasty on reporting a subject immediately. Lets wait and see if it's notable for inclusion then we can decide (and improve the article in the mean time as more information comes out). Tweedle (talk) 15:08, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This same argument can be made for non-Draft: no need to jump the gun drafting this well developed article that has dozens of hours of volunteer labor and huge active viewership. Let's wait and see, it can always be renominated later if it turns out this was a flash in the pan. Where you draw the line should be made not based on a belief editors make too many newsy article, but based on the specifics of this topic. Otherwise it is just making a point. -- GreenC 06:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close too much consensus for keep. we're getting nowhere having this still open. Great Mercian (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Keep - This is a case where primary sources can be used while maintaining care about how they are used. The article is about the alleged existence which is accurate.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't under the !vote rationale because the article includes the controversy over it's existence, but it's not about that, nor takes a position if it's accurate or not. Nor is this AfD a referendum about if its exists or not. Nor are primary sources a major issue since we report what people say "according to..", as quoted in secondary sources by journalists. -- GreenC 15:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What I am saying is that you can use all kinds of sources if you use them responsibly. As long as at least 2 of the sources are substantial and reliable enough to establish notability. Beyond that it is fine to use unconventional sources to write parts of the article, these can eventually be discussed if there are issues. PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to SPEEDY KEEP. The notability of the article topic is very obvious. To all the people voting "Delete it's speculation", or "delete it's fake". That does not matter. It does not matter if it is real or not, it is notable through the fact that it is obviously heavily noted in various sources, it has significant coverage and therefore notable no matter what it is.--PiccklePiclePikel (talk) 18:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable Andre🚐 20:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since this is an organization, WP:NORG criteria applies. We require multiple references that discuss the organization in detail, coverage must be deep or significant coverage and must contain "Independent Content". There are no references or sourcing that meets these criteria, nevermind identifying multiple references. Based on our guidelines, this topic fails NORG. Also none of the Keep !voters have identified any reasons based on our guidelines for keeping and none have identified sourcing that meets our criteria. HighKing++ 21:18, 30 August 2022 (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. firefly ( t · c ) 09:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Verdun[edit]

Cesar Verdun (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)

(Former?) association football player with only one single senior appearance in the game, apparently retired at 22. No significant in-depth coverage available apart from a number of passing mentions and non-independent sources [48], fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2022 (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. firefly ( t · c ) 09:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A.S.D. Castiglione[edit]

A.S.D. Castiglione (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)

Amateur football club from Sicily, they played Serie D one season alone, now dissolved. No significant coverage available for the club to ensure notability, fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2022 (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. firefly ( t · c ) 09:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A.S.D. Anaune Val di Non[edit]

A.S.D. Anaune Val di Non (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)

Tiny amateur football club from Italy, never played anywhere higher than Eccellenza (regional league), no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG. Angelo (talk) 08:13, 22 August 2022 (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. firefly ( t · c ) 09:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Ling[edit]

Jason Ling (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)

Unnotable person; the article gives his Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon score as 3 as one of the most interesting things to write about. The sources are also mostly just spam links. -- NotCharizard 🗨 08:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination, fails WP:SIGCOV. Shaniquagreen (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2022 (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 Bluff Springs Township, Cass County, Illinois. Star Mississippi 03:21, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Lake, Cass County, Illinois[edit]

Clear Lake, Cass County, Illinois (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)

Older topos show both a lake and a cluster of homes labelled as "clear lake", but whatever was there doesn't seem to have received significant coverage to establish notability. Newspaper results returned plenty of other Clear Lakes, particularly in Iowa and Dakota Territory, even when restricted to Illinois papers. –dlthewave ☎ 05:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Illinois. –dlthewave ☎ 05:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bluff Springs Township, Cass County, Illinois. Imzadi 1979 → 05:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bluff Springs Township, Cass County, Illinois per NGEO and AtD. Djflem (talk) 06:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is very hard to search because of the adjoining lake, but the only possible reference to it I could find was an 1882 history of the county which states of one John W. Thompson, "He is one of the most prominent farmers of this county, where he owns 612 acres of land; the somewhat famous 'Clear Lake', of this county, is mostly owned by him." I do see some dots on old topos, which correspond to buildings on aerials, but almost none of it is there now, and it's not terribly clear what those buildings were. It's certainly a leap to assume they were houses people lived in. I'm opposed to redirecting these articles to the townships anyway, but especially in this case where we cannot really tell what was here. Mangoe (talk) 23:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because of the mixed opinions about the value of redirecting/merging this article to other articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:25, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Merge is not an AfD outcomeand it is not clear what could be merged in this article which is 1 line article with one source that merely establishes existence. There is no encyclopaedic topic here, and nor is one possible in this case, so per WP:GEOLAND, this should be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge is a possible AFD outcome. It happens all of the time. Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I stand corrected, but I don't see anything here to merge. (By way of explanation, I had an AfD case a few years ago where the closer closed it as merge and told me that I then had to propose a merge as it was not a deletion. I cannot remember which case it was so as to refer to it now. I think it was a list article). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heikki Jaansalu[edit]

Heikki Jaansalu (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:NOLYMPICS. A user added multiple references on the article talk page, but random websites don't appear enough to satisfy notability guidelines. Recommend redirect to Shooting at the 1996 Summer Olympics – Men's trap. NytharT.C 06:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Estonia. NytharT.C 06:23, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources listed on the article talkpage are not just "random websites", they're news websites from his country. And they demonstrate significant coverage that passes WP:GNG- coverage does not have to be in English to be used to demonstrate notability. Just because he didn't win an Olympic medal, that is not a reason to delete someone, if they pass WP:GNG, like this person does. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Joseph2302: The 5th and 6th references contain passing mentions of him, and the rest appear to fail wp:SPORTBASIC. "Random websites" because of their contents; he isn't the focus of some. And the seventh reference is a mistake; it's apparently a different Jaansalu. NytharT.C 09:29, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Try this instead of the seventh source. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is my opinion that the person passes GNG. This is only about H.Jaansalu and this is about Estonian team - him and Andrei Inešin. Here's more sources: Achievement summary on issf-sports.org, plus [49], [50] [51], [52], also [53], [54] [55] [56]. This is probably the best (reliable website) summary of his career: 1989 European Championship team bronze, 1990 World Cup (team) winner, Soviet Championship silver in 1985 (indiv) and 1986–87 gold/1988–90 silver (team), 1987 Soviet Cup winner (team), Estonian champion 9x individual and 7x team, 1978 Latvian champion (indiv); shot 5 Estonian records, ESSF Grand Champion in 1983 and 1995; he was also in the board of directors of the Estonian national federation and led (still leads) one of the commitees. It is quite obvious that back then (during his career) the newspapers were on paper, not in the internet. The situation was also a bit different because Estonia was part of the Soviet Union until 1991 - there would also be sources in Russian language which I dont speak well. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've added a couple of sources, including the online Estonian Encyclopedia (cf WP:ANYBIO #3). The sources provided above by Pelmeen10 are in any case enough to meet GNG (please do add them to the article though!). It's not clear how much WP:BEFORE was carried out here, if any, but BEFORE is not a dead letter and this man is not an obscure figure. Ingratis (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has an entry at Eesti spordi biograafiline leksikon and per references given by Pelmeen10. He firmly passes WP:GNG. ExRat (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2022 (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 due to coverage being discovered and unchallenged. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Äxmät İsxaq[edit]

Äxmät İsxaq (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)

Had nominated for speedy deletion, request was denied, am bringing here to AfD. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG nor any subject specific guideline. A loose necktie (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for supporting information is complicated by trying to figure out what spelling/orthography/language to use. For example, this article about İsxaq's wartime correspondence with his children only pops up when you google the Russian form of his name, Ахмет Исхак, which wasn't in the en-wiki article when the AFD opened. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extensive profile of him in the May 1975 issue of Казан утлары marking his 70th birthday. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another profile: Mitsnulin, Robert M. (2017). "Бәйрәм Кѳнне Туган Шагыйрь: Әхмәт Исхак" [Poet Born on a Holiday: Äxmät İsxaq]. Башкаларга бер караш…: мәкаләләр, истәләкләр, ижат бәяләмәләре [A Look at Others... Articles, Memoirs, and Reviews] (in Tatar). Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia: Татар. кит. нәшр. pp. 101–102. ISBN 978-5-298-03482-1 – via Google Books.. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep coverage in multiple encyclopedias. Also greatly improved already per WP:HEY. --Jahaza (talk) 21:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 22 August 2022 (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! 03:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Furnace[edit]

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

It's a furnace. Coverage does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Carnegie Steel. not notable.Oaktree b (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Aw man, I just started this article as a stub late last night, so let's not judge it on its current state. I think this site is important in the history of Pittsburgh, steelmaking, and the Carnegie brothers (Andrew Carnegie, Thomas M. Carnegie). A significant amount has been written about Lucy and its rivalry with the Isabella furnace. For example see the entire chapter "A Rivalry of Great Furnaces" (starts here) in The Inside History of the Carnegie Steel Company: A Romance of Millions. (Bridge, James Howard. New York: The Aldine Book Company, 1903.). — brighterorange (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've expanded the article significantly, with a number of references. There's a lot more that can be extracted from the chapter I linked above. Aside from the notability conferred by the references, consider that this is the first furnace Andrew Carnegie built, and that it held several records for production. Please take another look :) — brighterorange (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep adequate sourcing to prove GNG applies. And enough content to avoid a merge. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review article after substantial work has been done on this article since nomination. It was probably a bad move to tag it for an AFD an hour or so after it was created. We generally allow more time for content creators to develop articles before considering deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I didn't think a furnace could be particularly notable, but I have seen enough reports and articles on newspapers.com to convince me that it indeed was notable. I think a WP:BEFORE search could have been a little more exhaustive prior to nom in this instance. Bungle (talk • contribs) 06:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:58, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shriram Sharma[edit]

Shriram Sharma (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)

Did a search for sources, all of them seem to lack independence from the subject or are trivial mentions. Did not see in-depth discussion in reliable independent verifiable sources. This is the article's second deletion nomination. A loose necktie (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say that Shriram Sharma is notable person because he got honored by getting stamp from the government of India and all the citation are reliable sources, only 2 sources are not independent but others are independent and reliable --Contributor008 (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He's on the postage. That.. usually isn't true of non-notable people? Andre🚐 00:29, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article from The Pioneer (India) is an RS entirely about the subject which indicates truly enduring notability, since the Chief Minister gets in the news for paying tribute to Sharma thirty years after Sharma's death. Similarly, as the others note, ordinary people don't typically get commemorative stamps. To add a new source, this "today in history" article mentions Sharma's death as an event on par with launching a Mars space craft and Telangana becoming an Indian state. I also found some hits in google scholar when adding they keyword "saint" to filter out random science papers by authors with a similar name, including this. The wiki article would benefit from a skilled editor vis-a-vis WP:NPOV, especially if we want to cover the spiritual context in more detail, but the sourcing readily searchable in English and online for this Indian man who died in 1990 seems like plenty to support notability, and a strong indication that even more coverage exists from his lifetime. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also-- so far as I can tell, this is this article's first deletion nomination? Looking at the talk page, it was deleted previously, but I can't find a previous AfD? So the earlier delete may have been e.g. copyvio, rather than a challenge to notabiltiy. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was indeed speedy-deleted as a copyvio (WP:CSD#G12). The web page it was supposedly copied from has a spammy-looking url and doesn't seem to exist any more so it's difficult to check how accurate that was. The article, short and neutrally written as it appears to be, is still problematic in that respect: the sentence "He dedicated his life to betterment of the society and for cultural and character upliftment", for instance, appears to have been copied word-for-word from its source [57], without being marked as a quote. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:13, 22 August 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Coverdale[edit]

Michael Coverdale (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 with a lack of WP:SIGCOV from third-party reliable sources. The "Island School" source in the article covers him for a few sentences but is not independent. Passing mentions like this don't qualify either. JTtheOG (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Hong Kong. JTtheOG (talk) 03:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hong Kong national rugby sevens team (with the history preserved under the redirect), where the subject is currently mentioned twice. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources in my searches for sources about Michael Coverdale (traditional Chinese: 高凡戴爾; simplified Chinese: 高凡戴尔). The subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. A redirect will allow for a selective merge and for the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 08:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While this player did have a reasonable international career for the lesser rugby union nation of Hong Kong, I'm failing to see significant coverage. Cunard above seems to have done a non-English language search and found nothing different either. Personally, I disagree with the redirect here, as there's a number of different locations for redirect. He's played rugby sevens, rugby 15s, in a sevens World Cup, etc so I don't think there is a singular suitable redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Michael Coverdale's playing "rugby sevens, rugby 15s, and in a sevens World Cup" all on behalf of the Hong Kong national rugby sevens team? Or did he play some of those on behalf of other teams? If the playing is all on behalf of Hong Kong national rugby sevens team, then I think that article is a good place to redirect to. Cunard (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He's played for Hong Kong at sevens, Hong Kong at 15s and at a rugby sevens World Cup, these could all be potential redirect targets, redirecting to just one may well likely confuse the reader, or not be what the reader is looking for. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mixed support for a redirect (and, if so, which one?), looking for other opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - does not have the WP:SIGCOV required for an article and I'm not seeing a clear and obvious redirect that would be beneficial to the reader. Once he is no longer in the current squad, it's unlikely he'll be mentioned at all at Hong Kong national rugby sevens team anyway. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I concur with the delete !voters above in that a redirect in this instance would not really be a helpful or beneficial alternative and outright deletion is probably the better option. No indication of the needed WP:SIGCOV to warrant an article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 12:18, 29 August 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Young Man Lake[edit]

Young Man Lake (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 GNG/NGEO due to lack of significant coverage. The two sources that aren't databases or maps have only the briefest of passing mentions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Montana. –dlthewave ☎ 04:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearpaw Lake (Teton County, Wyoming) as it contains a list of articles by the same author that were included in this mass deletion attempt by the same nom. Atsme 💬 📧 21:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep there are now four sources (I mistyped this and when I reread it I corrected it) I (still) think it passes WP:GEOLAND but only barely. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 05:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per nom, just barely scrapes through passing WP:GEOLAND, has potential to become a better article. N1TH Music (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Listed on GNIS and USGS Topo maps as a placename important enough to have mention. While not of great notability there is NO HARM in keeping as the article suffers none of the other criteria. For the record I am an inclusionist.--MONGO (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning delete but perhaps a better solution would be to redirect this to a List of lakes in Glacier National Park or the like, as this isn't the only such lake which is of minor importance but which could be described (and mapped) in a list article. Mangoe (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily passes WP:GEOLAND – I cannot believe this article is at AfD. Atsme 💬 📧 03:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC) Adding that the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming) applies here as well. There is also NEXIST, so I did a bit of resarch, and the books are out there if anyone wants to expand the article. For example Montana's Best Fishing Waters, and Fishing Glacier National Park pg 211. The books are out there, and during that quickie search there was an article about how that particular lake came by it's name. Atsme 💬 📧 12:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a WP:GEOLAND pass. Lightburst (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC
  • Delete per WP:GEOLAND, which says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. Here we have an article with 3 lines and 4 sources after 11 years. It seems evident and searches bear out that there is not enough verifiable content here for an encyclopaedic article. It doesn't even get sufficient notability for a mention in the parent Glacier National Park (U.S.) and that is where editors should concentrate their efforts before spinning the information out into a new article. The keep !votes above do nothing to explain why this is notable. Mangoe makes a good point that a notable article is possible if all these features of the park were taken together in a list article or an encylopaedic article about the park's lakes (which could discuss park gelology for instance). But taken individually, these are just not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part of the guideline you quoted does not apply to nationally protected areas and named natural features. I have already explained this at the other 10 or so articles in this mass deletion attempt. The NGEO page banner clearly states (my bold underline): Places with nationally protected status (e.g. protected areas, national heritage sites, cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable. We also have WP:NEXIST, which squelches your source argument; proper sources have been cited and others exist. WP:SNG clearly states Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. I'll go another step further with WP:CONTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Your comment about this article's 3 lines is irrelevant at AfD because (a) the current material is more than simple statistics, and (b) being a stub does not effect notability. HTH Atsme 💬 📧 21:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You are quoting from the "this page in a nutshell" from WP:NGEO. To be clear, no one here disputes that Glacier National Park is notable, so no need to quote that part. So the relevant text is named natural features, with verifiable information beyond simple statistics are presumed to be notable. but the page goes on to give guidelines for what constitutes verifiable information, and so, on that same page, in the exposition - rather than the nutshell guide - gives us WP:GEOLAND which I quoted. What does the nutshell mean by "verifiable information beyond simple statistics"? We read that The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. And again, WP:NEXIST is not relevant. I have not said that the sources must be in the article. I have said I have found no evidence that sufficient sources exist anywhere for a standalone article on Young Man Lake. Now I don't want to get int some kind of battle on this. AfD is a discussion, and my view is that there is a lot of sense in having some kind of article that brings all the lakes or sites/sights or whatever together into a single encyclopaedic article. I just think there are better ways to do this then to make all these stubs all over the place that no one touches for years, no one reads and no one benefits from. It is clear you care about the fact that this information is on Wikipedia somewhere but wouldn't it be better in some more encylopaedic article?
    I have said my piece and will leave it there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND. I agree that a geographical feature should be deleted (or redirected) when there is nothing of import besides a database listing. But again, Wikipedia has features of a gazetteer; that's why WP:GEOLAND exists. And any "young men" who make the climb may enjoy the article. I am sympathetic, but unconvinced, by a "merge" argument—parks have many lakes and it would be unwieldy to include them in the main article. I would be okay with merging into an article List of lakes in Glacier National Park, but that doesn't exist yet. Ovinus (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND Bruxton (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2022 (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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 01:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming)[edit]

Forget-me-not Lakes (Wyoming) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG/NGEO due to lack of significant coverage. The article was recently deprodded after sources were added, however A climber's guide to the Teton range is only a brief passing mention and Teewinot only discusses the namesake flower with no mention of the lakes themselves. BEFORE search did not find additional SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 04:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Man Lake
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grizzly Bear Lake
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearpaw Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cirque Lake (Teton County, Wyoming) 
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coyote Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudley Lake (Teton County, Wyoming)
  • Keep Listed on GNIS and USGS Topo maps as a placename important enough to have mention. While not of great notability there is NO HARM in keeping as the article suffers none of the other criteria. For the record I am an inclusionist.--MONGO (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant SNG, WP:GEOLAND, requires that "information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist". It's long been accepted that simply appearing on maps and GNIS is insufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 05:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning delete But again I think the better solution for this and the other Grand Teton lakes is a list of lakes in the park. Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - easily passes GEOLAND. Atsme 💬 📧 03:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article clearly possesses information "beyond statistics and coordinates" already, so more is "known to exist". When I saw this prod, my first impression, my gut reaction, was to question what harm this article was doing, and question why it was nominated. I suppressed my first impression for a time. I do a bit of new page patrol (perhaps not enough), and coming from a well-known contributor on this sort of subject matter I might pass such a page at new page patrol merely on good faith. Similarly, I won't doubt the good faith WP:BOLD of the nominator, who I'm certain feels a need to delete. In this particular case, I'm going to question the judgment of the nominator as it regards this specific subject-matter type and request they refrain from further prods or afds until we sidebar this whole question of NOHARM and GEOLAND. Since my NPP mentor is already in this discussion, I'm sure she'd be happy to help examine this question. User:Dlthewave is under no restriction but with respect, I request they halt the prodding and nomming for now. BusterD (talk) 09:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, BusterD – NEXIST applies here as does GEOLAND. Notability has been met because these lakes, although small in comparison to some of the others, are a natural attraction in the Grand Tetons, and they are glacial lakes along the Death Canyon Shelf. WP:N is met by SNG as per WP:GNG: Some SNGs have specialized functions: for example, the SNG for academics and professors and the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG. As a sidebar note, they are notable enough that there is a widely publicized National Parks poster of the Forget-me-not Lakes area available globally, including Walmart and Amazon. The area is also covered in multiple books, and there is probably some interesting history about the formation of those lakes in books at public libraries, or in other documentation that can be obtained from park authorities. Atsme 💬 📧 12:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've invited the nominator to sidebar this discussion as suggested above. I very much appreciate their willingness to forbear (for the moment) similar prods and noms. I am aware that NO HARM is an argument to avoid, but as an eventualist myself, I believe that sources for such marginal but verifiable geographic topics will eventually be presented. Such are already presented here. I'm not as experienced in AfD as some of my fellows in this discussion. I'm willing to admit my inexperience might unduly color my assertions; I'm attempting to view this situation through a new page patroller's lens, even though it's been in pagespace for some time. It seems reasonable to presume NPP guides would dovetail with GNG and SNGs. 1) I feel this subject meets WP:VERIFY but also agree this page as it was at prodding was just shy of the intent of GEOLAND; 2) After improvements by page creator after prodding, I feel the page now passes that SNG; 3) Judging from the !votecount as of this comment, other editors agree with my outcome, if not my rationale. I'm interested in hearing from the nominator as to why deletion was requested even though the page creator was actively sourcing the page in response to the good faith prod. BusterD (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes our guidelines for inclusion Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GEOLAND, which says The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography.. Here we have an article with 3 lines and 4 sources after 10 years. In that time it had only had 5 edits until it was proposed for deletion! It seems evident and searches bear out that there is not enough verifiable content here for an encyclopaedic article. It doesn't even get sufficient notability for a mention in the parent Grand Teton National Park and that is where editors should concentrate their efforts before spinning the information out into a new article. The keep !votes above do nothing to explain why this is notable. The suggestion above about putting park features into a list article would make sense, as would other articles that treated with a range of features that could then be part of an encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. Sadly, though, there is no encyclopaedic content on this page, and I am a little surprised as many people want to keep it as have said so here. However the onus remains on them to show that the subject is notable as is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:GEOLAND. These are pretty small lakes but there is certainly non-statistical information about them. Unfortunately I couldn't find any newspaper sources. Ovinus (talk) 19:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GEOLAND Bruxton (talk) 16:20, 29 August 2022 (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 it's unlikely one is going to emerge with experienced editors looking at the sources differently. Star Mississippi 03:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

YakiniQuest[edit]

YakiniQuest (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:NCORP. Appears to be a WP:MILL restaurant. The articles best claim of notability is one "of the 6 best yakiniku restaurants in Singapore in 2016". Besides typical restaurant review coverage, there is not much - No in-depth significant independent coverage. MB 01:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Business, and Singapore. MB 01:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Local award with overly specific qualifiers doesn't really help to establish notability. None of the listed sources meet WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS - specifically, the clause stating "reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications", with ST, CNA, and Business Times all local publications (and arguablyTime Out too despite being owned by an international group, since their target audience is still local). A search turns up no other reliable sources that aren't already in the article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    Analysis of the sources

    All of the sources meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews as they are significant, independent, and reliable.

    I will specifically address the guideline's requirement that "Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications". YakiniQuest is a restaurant in the country of Singapore, which has a population of about five million. All of the sources are national sources that cover national Singaporean topics. The sources are not "purely local or narrow" publications.

    The Straits Times, a newspaper of record for Singapore, has a readership of 1.9 million and is read by 44% of people in Singapore who are 15 and older. The Business Times, Singapore's only financial daily newspaper, is a national source that covers national financial topics. CNA is a multinational news channel based in Singapore. Time Out is a global magazine that publishes a Singapore edition.

    Sources

    1. Tan, Hsueh Yun (2015-12-04). "Yakiniquest, Creatures, Bird Bird, Bao Makers". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.

      The restaurant review gives detailed analysis of Yakiniquest. The review notes, "A lot of care is given to the appetisers. Niku Soumen, beef cut into strands to look like somen noodles, is served like Japanese cold noodles, with a soya dipping sauce, seaweed, scallions and a dab of wasabi. The beef, on its own, tastes sweet, with a slight minerality. Mix it with the sauce and toppings and umami takes over. Another good course is Yakisuki, which mashes up yakiniku and sukiyaki."

    2. Ee, Jaime (2022-03-31). "All beefed up at Yakiniquest". The Business Times. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.

      The restaurant review gives detailed analysis of Yakiniquest. The review notes, "The view of Orchard Road below is a bonus. Otherwise, the tables in the main dining room are fine too, fairly far apart so there's enough room to manoeuvre. The decor is a visual nod to the many eateries the owners have been to - cue dark wood panelling, Japanese-style walls and retro PVC-cushioned chairs."

      The review further notes, "A bite-sized roll of a wafer-thin slice of beef over shredded cucumber, doused in a creamy sesame sauce, doesn't excite, but it's followed by an intriguing niku 'somen' made of thin "noodles" of raw beef, which are slippery smooth in a cold dashi-soy dip with wasabi. The noodles are strangely neutral in flavour and almost bland, but perk up with the dip. ... Yakisuki is way too sweet, but a good twist on sukiyaki. ... The only blip in the meal is the rice dish - either an over-salted premix-like beef curry, or a tongue stew which fares slightly better, but that doesn't say much."

    3. Wong, Ah Yoke (2022-02-24). "Food Picks: Prawn noodle and lok lok at White Restaurant's new Fei Lou Fatt". The Straits Times. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.

      The restaurant review notes, "For example, I had grilled tongue eaten with chopped leeks, a wagyu aburi sushi and sukiyaki. Each provides a unique experience for the palate. I like fatty meat so my favourite cuts are the ribeye and rib intercostal, but I appreciate that alternating them with leaner cuts that have more bite and flavour makes the meal more enjoyable. A staff member does the grilling at the table to ensure nothing is overcooked."

    4. Ma, Grace (2022-04-13). "The Japanese who loved yakiniku so much he opened a restaurant in Singapore with no F&B experience". CNA. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.

      The restaurant review notes, "For the S$128 “Appetite” omakase lunch, we tasted seven different cuts of beef. Besides the usual striploin and ribeye, there were also cuts like Sankaku Bara (chuck shoulder) and Nakaochi Karubi (also known as beef rib finger, the meat between the bones of beef ribs) made crispy and slightly charred and paired with an unconventional dashi broth. The tender Australian beef tongue was served with leeks, seasoned in salt, pepper and sesame oil, which made it even more moreish. A dash of white pepper enhanced a lean shoulder cut, and try as we might, the signature wagyu aburi sushi and “yakisuki” were gone too soon. A few quick dabs on the grill, and the slightly pink zabuton slice was draped over vinegared rice. We popped it in one mouthful and savoured the softness of the meat as its fragrant oils oozed into the grains. After that, a sweet dipping sauce with egg yolk transformed the “yakisuki” beef into a creamy party in the mouth."

    5. Tan, Dawson (2022-03-18). "Meet the couple behind Yakiniquest who also conquered over 2,000 yakiniku spots in Japan". Time Out. Archived from the original on 2022-08-14. Retrieved 2022-08-14.

      The review notes, "Our favourite cuts were the striploin and the ribeye centre. The former saw thinly sliced well-marbled striploin grilled and served sukiyaki style with an umami-ladened sweet soy sauce and a luscious yolk for an overall slam dunk of a dish. While the latter was a thick slice of melt-in-your-mouth fatty meat served alongside a grated radish ponzu sauce to introduce some bright notes that help balance each unctuous bite."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow YakiniQuest to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 09:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - due to the sources found by Cunard. MaxnaCarta (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's been numerous attempts over the years to come up with a specific restaurant sections within NCORP and nothing has been agreed to date. Every restaurant will be reviewed regardless and lots of newpapers publish "reviews" of restaurants in their area, not because the restaurant is notable but because it is in the area served by the publication. Reviews have other aspects too - for example is the critic notable, is the review published by an organization that employs proper inspectors, etc. For those reasons, just because a restaurant has a catchy story about how the owner jumped in with no experience or how the food was awarded 7/10 (or whatever score) does not make it notable. There are millions of restaurants that could make the same claim. HighKing++ 16:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Local reviews just aren't enough to show notability. We need at least some coverage that is not a local review to show notability, and there's none here. In Singapore all coverage is local coverage. The place is just geographically extremely small, people can get clear across the country in under an hour. Every paper in Singapore covers dozens of restaurants a year. They aren't all notable. If this one were notable it would be at least mentioned in some non-SG coverage. Valereee (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews (WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS) says:

    Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications (see also #Audience). For example, a review of a local harvest festival in a local newspaper or a book review in a newsletter by a city's library would not qualify as significant coverage."

    Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience (WP:AUD) says:

    The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.

    I will discuss the "audience" aspect of each source in more detail:
    1. The Straits Times, a newspaper of record for Singapore, has a readership of 1.9 million and is read by 44% of people in Singapore who are 15 and older. A newspaper with a readership of 1.9 million clearly is not a "purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publication". A newspaper of record is a national source.
    2. The Business Times is a major financial newspaper in Singapore. According to this page from an Asian Media Information and Communication Centre book (bolding added for emphasis), "The Business Times is a key source of business intelligence for investors, managers and businessmen in Singapore and the Asian region", while Forbes called the newspaper "influential". It is clear that a newspaper that is "a key source of business intelligence" for businesspeople in "the Asian region" is not "media of limited interest and circulation". This is another national source.
    3. According to this book published by Marshall Cavendish (bolding added for emphasis), "The Channel NewsAsia story began as an unlikely story. Who would have thought an authoritarian city-state could birth a news channel that is now widely watched across the Asian continent. Today, it has the widest reach in the Asia-Pacific of TV news channels indigenous to Asia. Among international news channels, it is ranked 5th (with CNN and BBC World News first and second respectively). More importantly, it is the only English language network that positions itself as an alternative to Western-based international news, with an Asian perspective. Channel NewsAsia currently broadcasts to 28 territories in Asian and the Middle East, across 11 time zones." CNA clearly is a national or international source that is not "media of limited interest and circulation".
    4. Time Out is a travel magazine published by a company based in London. The Singapore edition covers topics across Singapore and is read by Singaporeans nationally so is a national source.
    Singapore is a small country. WP:AUD does not say that small countries' national media are not national media. I consider Singapore's national media to be national media under the notability guideline. Even if the Singaporean national sources were downgraded because the country is small, they would at most become regional sources. The notability guideline is clear that regional sources can be used to establish notability. YakiniQuest meets WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS and WP:AUD.

    Cunard (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I'm pretty sure most news outlets in Singapore do not publish restaurant reviews, so I genuinely don't understand where the thought that every single one of the 4.9 thousand restaurants in Singapore was been reviewed in The Straits Times, or The Business Times, or today, or CNA or any other Singaporean news outlets that does reviews comes from, and out of all the newspapers listed here, I'm pretty sure only The Business Times has ever frequently published reviews of restaurants, so not every single restaurant will receive reviews in major publications such as The Straits Times or The Business Times. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 08:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to see Delete voters assess sources found and not dismiss them as "local" coverage. Those advocating Keep have put forward a strong argument that not every restaurant in a city receives this kind of coverage from the media.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've already linked above to previous discussions on notability of restaurants. Getting reviewed in *daily* newspapers means that the newspaper tries to publish a review regularly whether that is daily or not I don't know - I'm not familiar enough with the papers mentioned but I can see that the reviews are dated to different days of the week and so if they are daily, the publisher will have reviewed hundreds and perhaps thousands of restaurants. Are we saying they're all notable because they got reviewed? Obviously not - that would be ridiculous. So there are other factors which can be considered for restaurants - Michelin stars or other prestigious awards, a notable critic (there are many), or something else which we might consider. When I look at the reviews that have been published, most follow the same formula - for example, they all mention the origin of the name (really? independently? all of them?). Some so-called "independent" reviews include the same photo of the interior. Some don't even provide a "personal" in-depth review of the food. So in my opinion, this is a standard run-of-the-mill restaurant serving decent food that get reviewed just like the hundreds of other run-of-the-mill restaurants and I can't see anything remotely notable. HighKing++ 21:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews says (bolding added for emphasis for quotes from the guideline that I will focus on below in my source analysis):

    Be significant: brief and routine reviews (including Zagat) do not qualify. Significant reviews are where the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products. Reviews that narrowly focus on a particular product or function without broader context (e.g. review of a particular meal without description of the restaurant as a whole) do not count as significant sources. Reviews that are too generic or vague to make the determination whether the author had personal experience with the reviewed product are not to be counted as significant sources. Further, the reviews must be published outside of purely local or narrow (highly specialized) interest publications (see also #Audience). For example, a review of a local harvest festival in a local newspaper or a book review in a newsletter by a city's library would not qualify as significant coverage.

    I will discuss the "Be significant" aspect of each source in more detail:
    1. The Straits Times review notes: "If the name Yakiniquest sounds unusual for a restaurant, well, it is. And there is an interesting story behind this high-end grilled beef, or yakiniku, restaurant in Boat Quay."
      • The quote shows the author has "provide[d] broader context" about the restaurant's origins.

      The review notes: "A lot of care is given to the appetisers. Niku Soumen, beef cut into strands to look like somen noodles, is served like Japanese cold noodles, with a soya dipping sauce, seaweed, scallions and a dab of wasabi. The beef, on its own, tastes sweet, with a slight minerality. Mix it with the sauce and toppings and umami takes over."

      • The quote shows "the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth".
    2. The Business Times review notes: "There's more to meat than meeting the grill, and Yakiniquest - a loving tribute to Japanese yakiniku - rightfully doesn't trust you to do any cooking yourself. The owners are a Japanese couple who spent years on their yes, yakiniku quest, so they know what they're doing. ... Yakiniquest isn't new to Singapore, but its location is. [background about the history]"
      • The quote shows the author has "provide[d] broader context" about the restaurant's origins.

      The review notes: "The view of Orchard Road below is a bonus. Otherwise, the tables in the main dining room are fine too, fairly far apart so there's enough room to manoeuvre. The decor is a visual nod to the many eateries the owners have been to - cue dark wood panelling, Japanese-style walls and retro PVC-cushioned chairs."

      • The quote shows the author has provided a "description of the restaurant as a whole".
      3. The review notes: "A bite-sized roll of a wafer-thin slice of beef over shredded cucumber, doused in a creamy sesame sauce, doesn't excite, but it's followed by an intriguing niku 'somen' made of thin "noodles" of raw beef, which are slippery smooth in a cold dashi-soy dip with wasabi. The noodles are strangely neutral in flavour and almost bland, but perk up with the dip. ... Yakisuki is way too sweet, but a good twist on sukiyaki. ... The only blip in the meal is the rice dish - either an over-salted premix-like beef curry, or a tongue stew which fares slightly better, but that doesn't say much."
      • The quote shows "the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth".
    3. The CNA review notes: "What started as a childhood favourite dining place and an after-work supper option for the former advertising executive and his wife Tomoko morphed into a passion for seeking the best grilled beef in Japan and overseas with their foodie buddies. Each meal was reviewed and meticulously documented on their blog yakiniquest.com, which has become the grilled beef bible for those in the know. [Information about the restaurant's origins and beginning]"
      • The quote shows the author has "provide[d] broader context" about the restaurant's origins.
      4. The review notes: "For the S$128 “Appetite” omakase lunch, we tasted seven different cuts of beef. Besides the usual striploin and ribeye ... made crispy and slightly charred and paired with an unconventional dashi broth. The tender Australian beef tongue was ... which made it even more moreish. A dash of white pepper enhanced a lean shoulder cut, and ... We popped it in one mouthful and savoured the softness of the meat as its fragrant oils oozed into the grains. After that, a sweet dipping sauce with egg yolk transformed the “yakisuki” beef into a creamy party in the mouth."
      • The quote shows "the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth".
    4. The Time Out review notes: "Conquering an annual average of 150 yakiniku establishments across Japan since they started in 1998, they would religiously convene on the 29th of each month as “niku’ in Japanese not only translates to beef but also, the number 29. With such significance to their commitment, they have managed to cover over 2000 yakiniku restaurants till today and they aren’t stopping just yet – a fact that still leaves many bewildered."
      • The quote shows the author has "provide[d] broader context" about the restaurant's origins.
      5. The review notes: "This 64 seater includes four private dining enclaves with smokeless ceramic charcoal gas grills that offer more control to produce a finessed grilling outcome that retains the integrity of the choice cuts." The quote shows the author has provided a "description of the restaurant as a whole".

      The review notes, "Our favourite cuts were the striploin and the ribeye centre. The former saw thinly sliced well-marbled striploin grilled and served sukiyaki style with an umami-ladened sweet soy sauce and a luscious yolk for an overall slam dunk of a dish. While the latter was a thick slice of melt-in-your-mouth fatty meat served alongside a grated radish ponzu sauce to introduce some bright notes that help balance each unctuous bite."

      • The quote shows "the author has personally experienced or tested the product and describes their experiences in some depth".
    All five sources have national or international readership or viewership. There is no support in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Product reviews (WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS) or Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience (WP:AUD) for the assertion that restaurant reviews cannot be used to establish notability when published in daily newspapers in the restaurant's region or nation. If editors would like this to be the case, they would need to change the guideline. Any restaurant that receives this depth of analysis and reporting about its history and food in national publications is notable under the notability guideline for companies.

    The restaurant reviews cover different aspects of the restaurant's origin story. It is understandable that restaurant reviewers would tell their readers about why the restaurant is called "YakiniQuest" because that is crucial to understanding the restaurant's yakiniku cuisine and history.

    I didn't see the same photographs in these two links but even if that were the case it does not make the sources non-independent. It would make only the photos part of the sources non-independent if they were provided by the restaurant. There is plenty of independent analysis of the restaurant as I've shown above.

    Cunard (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there are two of the same photo provided by the restaurant is that the restaurant did a photo shoot and started sending out press releases. Which also explains why so many of the articles that include those photos are from the same short period. In my mind there is a clear possibility this is paid advertising. Valereee (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because, yeah, this is how professional journalists write: "...which lit up flames of passion within the Ishida’s to spread their love of yakiniku with everyone." Yep. Valereee (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Straits Times articles were published in 2015 and February 2022. The other articles were published in March 2022 and April 2022 which I view as a sufficiently long time period to be not from a brief burst of coverage. The quote has flowery language from an enthusiastic restaurant reviewer. I see no evidence that the author of the quote, Dawson Tan of Time Out, is an unprofessional journalist.

Accusing reputable journalists of undisclosed paid advertising is a very serious allegation to make. Is there any evidence that Hsueh Yun Tan of The Straits Times, Jaime Ee of The Business Times, Ah Yoke Wong of The Straits Times, Grace Ma of CNA, or Dawson Tan of Time Out or their publications have ever engaged in undisclosed paid advertising? Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... the CNA article is marked as an Advertisement. We can learn a bit from that. For example, we now know that the restaurant will pay for reviews. We can also that the restaurant will provide photos for the review. We can see that the review follows a particular format and mentions the story of the blog and how the founder/chef left his job, etc. All of these traits we can see in the other reviews too. We can see that in the other "reviews" that Photos were provided by the restaurant. We can see in the last reference from The Business Times the same interior photo that appeared in the CNA article. But to be honest, all of this is very obvious, I don't know why we're even having a discussion about these reviews. Even if we accept the the reviews are "independent", I still don't see why getting reviewed in a daily newspaper translates as notability. One of the Keep !voters above put forward the reason that it was unusual for restaurants to get reviewed - which is very odd considering that some of those publications, The Straits Times, have multiple reviews published on the same day. But again, so what? Millions of restaurants get reviewed every day. Being reviewed in daily newspapers doesn't make the restaurant notable. This is common or garden newspaper filler by and the examples above appear to follow a script and rely on photos provided by the restaurant so arguable not even intellectually independent. HighKing++ 21:04, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CNA article is not marked as an advertisement. The advertisement at the top refers to the advertisement at the top not the article. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be right. I was looking at the archive version and it just has the word "advertisement" at the top - but the "live" version doesn't. Also found this article which is marked as an Advertorial. But the rest of the points still hold up. HighKing++ 11:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the Straits Times articles you linked are reviews. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2022 (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 03:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Un-hyang (footballer)[edit]

Kim Un-hyang (footballer) (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:NOLYMPICS. Also lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2022 (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 03:30, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Su-gyong[edit]

Kim Su-gyong (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:NOLYMPICS. Also lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:53, 22 August 2022 (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 02:50, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dog Brothers[edit]

Dog Brothers (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)

Declined prod.

Prod rationale, which was written by User:Nswix is as follows: doesn't meet notability

I am neutral on the matter since this is a procedural nomination. Lenticel (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2022 (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 02:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Sun-hye[edit]

Kim Sun-hye (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. Also lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2022 (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. Consensus is the sourcing doesn't add up to more than BLP1E, and notability concerns ab out the event remain. Star Mississippi 03:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Noshad Khan[edit]

Imran Noshad 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:BLP1E. All coverage looks to be related to pepsi qr code incident. Slywriter (talk) 02:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and my PROD rationale; textbook case of WP:BLP1E. Ovinus (talk) 02:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this person might meet WP:GNG, but that is only a presumption of notability, not a guarantee. As mentioned above, WP:BLP1E applies here and makes clear they are not notable. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although the sources in article are mainly about single event but they all do mention of the other details of personal separately like him being activist and podcaster hailing from Karachi. I stubbified the article before moving it from draftspace and the rest of few details in it are not unsourced. So I think we shouldn't do haste in its deletion, let it be there for sometime to add more sources and improve it further. USaamo (t@lk) 10:55, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Subject notability is debatable though but the event coverage in article is merely two sentences in the end. Other details in the article are though sourced but from same sources about that event. Muneebll (talk) 07:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, despite the fact that the one event this individual received coverage for caused biographical details to be known, this is standard for most individuals involved in BLP1E scenarios. Given that, I believe the coverage fails to establish notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I looked at the citations. They all seem third party and also published by third parties, so notability is there. Even if it might be initially a stub for now.--Sylvester Millner (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This argument does not address the WP:BLP1E argument. It's worth noting that all the sources were published within a few days of each other. Ovinus (talk) 21:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per BLP1E. Textbook example: only coverage is related to event; he is otherwise a 'low-profile' individual; and the event itself is not notable or significant. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 13:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 100% agree that this is a textbook case of WP:BLP1E. KSAWikipedian (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @El cid, el campeador: and @KSAWikipedian: if this is a case of WP:BLP1E, then would you suggest moving this article to that event? VR talk 05:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Vice regent: That's the thing—the event is probably not notable either. Quoting the article, "he saved a 7 Up beverage truck driver from a mob for blasphemy allegations over a QR code". This is an important component of the three conditions for BLP1E (If the event is not significant). Ovinus (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Vice regent: I agree with Ovinus, I don't think that the event meets notability either. KSAWikipedian (talk) 06:27, 27 August 2022 (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 Abahlali baseMjondolo. or subsection thereof, as decided editorially. Star Mississippi 03:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philani Zungu[edit]

Philani Zungu (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 former local activist. Fails WP:GNG. Article has a single WP:RS. South Africa is a violent country, and being assaulted by police (sadly) doesn't confer notability. The assault can be covered at Abahlali baseMjondolo#Repression Park3r (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2022 (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 Rajasthan cricketers. Star Mississippi 03:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Kanwat[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rahul Kanwat (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 cricketer. Andre🚐 02:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Sports. Andre🚐 02:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One a very quick look, the worst case here is a redirect to List of Rajasthan cricketers which is a clear ATD. He played the vast majority of this cricket for this side. The list is incomplete and needs work, but that's easy to deal with and just needs time. I will take a more detailed look for sources later, but will note that this is yet another case of a brown person who played a lot of cricket being deemed non notable because no one has access to offline and/or non-English sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe I've ever nominated any other Indian cricketers for deletion before. The relevant question is whether there are any independent sources primarily about him, since the only sources about him appear to just list him as a utility player on a team. He played first-class cricket for 15+ years and there are no articles about him. By contrast, Pankaj Singh has several articles about him. Andre🚐 00:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Rajasthan cricketers I'm not seeing enough for a GNG pass, although in a simple search. If there's coverage of him it's likely in offline or non-English language sources anyway. Redirect is a suitable WP:ATD here though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:11, 22 August 2022 (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. However, a discussion on a potential redirect is encouraged to continue editorially. Star Mississippi 17:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Willoughby Kipling[edit]

Willoughby Kipling (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)

Topic fails WP:GNG. Mentions in reliable sources appear to be limited to trivial mentions and pop culture fluff articles. TTN (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, minor fluff that brings absolutely nothing to the table:
  • ScreenRant: Literally nothing but an overview of the character for the uninitiated, covering what already exists in the article. No usable commentary on the character.
  • Decider: Another minor introductory overview with basically nothing usable.
  • CBR: Same as the above
  • Cinemablend: Same as the above
  • All of them are basically useless in both producing content for the article and fulfilling GNG. It confirms the character does in fact exist in the show and gives an extraordinarily minor development tidbit that is already covered by primary sources in the "Publication history" section. TTN (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • They (and I grant that the coverage is quite overlapping) cover the character, its development history, why is a John Constantine-substitute. You admit that an RS--four, even--cover the basics about the character, but then complain that there's no commentary. GNG does not mention, let alone require, commentary. WP:NOTPLOT states we should cover "development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works" In what we have here, we have development, significance, and influence, arguably design... and that's just from the first page of Google News search. Moreover, we are supposed to follow the weight and proportion of what's in the RS'es per WP:DUE, so if RS'es cover plot and development without commentary, we would be UNDUE to demand commentary. Please familiarize yourself with the appropriate policies and guidelines around fictional elements before starting AfDs based on your own preferred criteria which do not appear therein. Jclemens (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNG requires non-trivial coverage. They are four cookie-cutter articles regurgitating the same basic clickbait information they probably got from Wikipedia in the first place. They don't even have a real place in the article because they bring absolutely nothing new to the table. If a source cannot be used in an article, then it is by definition trivial coverage. If simply being mentioned in a reliable source was enough, every single modern character from a semi-notable series would have an article because these sites do the same thing on a daily basis for probably literally every single character. That's not to mention that listicle-producing trash like SR and CBR probably barely skirt being RSs, if they even count. TTN (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what? That's perfectly circular logic, so devoid of actual policy support, that you've well and truly dug a hole: You're arguing that RS'es that confirm our article is correct don't contribute to notability, and that multiple RS'es saying the same thing is reason to discount all of them. ETA: Oh, and that multiple paragraph articles that are specifically about the topic are trivial. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You keep ignoring the "significant coverage" aspect. You have to show what merit these sources provide, explaining how they constitute significant coverage. If they do not merit inclusion in the article, they are not significant coverage. One source is all that is needed to fulfill verifiability of the television role. Any more than that is simply refbombing. The bit about the character's origin is already attributed to a primary source, so it is primary information directly from the creators. It doesn't need any other sources to confirm, thus those are useless in that regard. Again, these are not unique articles. These sites make their money off of clickbait covering every single casting decision in every single semi-popular show. If you were correct in your assessment, nearly every modern television character would be notable, which is not the case whatsoever. You're just simply incorrect, which seems to be very common in these recent fiction-related AfDs in which you've participated. I think you simply don't understand how fiction should be treated. TTN (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I understand exactly what you're saying, and entirely disagree. "You know why Encyclopedia Britannica covered all those topics? Sheer profit motive!" sounds about as credible. Yes, almost every modern TV show character is notable, because we have RS coverage for them. You think this is a bad thing? Sorry that Wikipedia wants to cover more than you want it to, but the mismatch is between your expectations and policy. Trying to artificially and inappropriately raise the bar on significant coverage is fine... WP:VPP is that way. Until then "directly and in detail" is the governing definition. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jclemens There is coverage and there is coverage. When the coverage doesn't go beyond plot summary and mentions of which media a character appeared in, GNG is not met as the subject has no wider significance. Here's food for thought: Genshin Impact is one of many very popular new video games that has dozen of playable characters, with a new one released monthly if not more often. All of said characters have dozens of how-to game guide pages (sample). While we should have a List of Genshin Impact characters (I just found one at draft and will probably fix and mainspace it soon), as someone who plays the game and reads much of such coverage, I am pretty sure that none of these characters deserve a stand-alone wikipedia page, as there is no reception of them outside of how-to-play guides and plot summaries. (Which is still more than for many non-game characters, where there are just plot summaries, but no how-to-play guides, as they are not playable... case being this one, discussed here). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You posit your "food for thought" as if a large number of notable characters is a bad thing. Sorry, but that's not anywhere in policy--not quite as bad as suggesting a series of multiple paragraph articles on a character all comprise trivial coverage, but still not policy. WP:NOTPAPER applies: if we can write RS'ed articles on a million fictional elements, super! Now here's my question for you: Why would this be a bad thing? Jclemens (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      @Jclemens If they meet our requirements for GNG, that's a great thing. The bad thing is if they don't. A lot of good articles is a good thing, a lot of bad articles is a bad thing :P My point is that in this day and age we are seeing a ton of low quality coverage of, among other things, fictional characters, but that coverage is litle more than a noise - see the sample article I linked about one particular GI character. I do not belive it constitutes SIGCOV. Would you agree or disagree with this? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All trivial mentions that wouldn't even be worth putting in episode articles (of which none even exist), let alone a character article. I repeat that all sites do this on a daily basis for all shows. These are not sources that help anything meet GNG. TTN (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur, but I'd be mildly interested in seeing how someone could waste their time trying to make a reception out if this. IFF this is kept such a reception section needs to happen first; in the current state the article is just a fancrufty plot summary with no value for our readers (I am sure fanwiki on the topic has a much better plot description anyway, with more links to in-universe topics, etc.). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG based on sources found.★Trekker (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to John Constantine#Analogues. I'm not convinced that the above coverage constitutes significant coverage, but Kipling is known for having been created to get around restrictions DC had on Constantine at the time, so I'd say that's a suitable merge target. JOEBRO64 00:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Doom Patrol, the above cited coverage are clear examples of trivial mentions rather than significant coverage, all they do is regurgitate the same sentence of information rather than provide anything that would contribute towards a GNG pass. Nothing better was gleaned from a search. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the claims of @Jclemens: and @StarTrekker: or merge with List of DC Comics characters: K in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:04, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to one of the proposed targets. I concur that the soruces cited are just plot summaries, that fail either WP:SIGCOV or WP:ALLPLOT. If there is nothing but plot summary and a list of apperances (in comics and an occasional TV feature), there is nothing for us to cover. We need some sort of reception, cultural significance, etc. that goes beyond "he can shoot lasers out if his butt and appeared on volume X of Laserbutt and episode Y of Buttlaser". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plot summaries in RS are RS, and count for notability, even if that were true here which it's not. Did you even read the sources? Your characterization is so at odds with what they actually say that it suggests you did not. Jclemens (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plot summaries in reliable sources absolutely do not count towards a GNG pass, an article based on such sources would be a textbook violation of WP:NOTPLOT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources provided in here show that WP:GNG is met, IMO. Plus, here's a piece I found from Decider. MoonJet (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG based on sources found. Thank you--Assyrtiko (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of different possibilities being discussed here, these doesn't seem to be consensus to Delete this article but opinions vary on whether this should be Kept, Redirected or Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to John Constantine#Analogues - Every single source that has been presented in this AFD has just been the exact same piece of information on the character's appearance in an episode of the Doom Patrol show, and the only real piece of information in any of them outside of the plot summary of the episode is just an explanation of his similarities to John Constantine. That latter factoid is not enough to build an article around and is, in fact, completely explained at John Constantine#Analogues already. Rorshacma (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to whatever. There is no shortage of trivial articles, while more than passing mentions, aren't enough widespread coverage on the character. SWinxy (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect agree with points made above. Nweil (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rorshacma. None of the coverage passes the threshold to meet WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to John Constantine#Analogues as a sort of non-notable alternate version, but does not pass the notability threshold for a standalone article. Trivial coverage should not be misleadingly presented as significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to John Constantine#Analogues. The article without a doubt fails WP:GNG per previous arguments, I find the keep arguments to be meandering. When did plot summaries, minor character overviews, trivial mentions, and routine coverage became SIGCOV, and how could WP:NOTPAPER supersede WP:GNG, which this does not meet, Jclemens? IMHO the keep votes boil down to WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. The keep arguments also misleadingly claim that Screenrant and CBR are RS, please read WP:RSP and Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games/Sources, these are situational. So, with non of the refs being significant, indepedent, and reliable, not even borderline notability is achieved, but per WP:ATD a redirect seems to be sensible. VickKiang (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's pretty simple, really: there are four, congruent, non-trivial, independent, RS'es that cover the topic: It's notable. Your statements to the contrary are demonstrably inaccurate, and rely on imputing escalating levels of reliability and coverage that are neither demanded nor suggested by policies or guidelines. Jclemens (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel this, based on your POV, is fine, why not let the closer decide whether the article will be kept or redirected? You state that I have a needelssly high bar of reliability and SIGCOV, but you are going against consensus both on this AfD through insisting trivial, non-RS refs are perfectly fine, and generally by denying consensus on whether refs are RS. Do you think the summaries on RSP and Wikiprojects are just wrong? I understand, as you are a more inclusionist, we won't agree on this, which is fine (it's after all part of building a consensus, and is arguably better than an AfD where everyone else agrees). Anyways, I am still interested in your definition of "trivial" and "reliable". Have a good day:) VickKiang (talk) 08:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know you weren't replying to me, but personally, I've always thought that "trivial" mentions are mentions of a certain topic without any real substance behind it. For example, a source that gives a few basic descriptions of the character and maybe a one sentence opinion on them vs. a source that gives better analyses on the character and gives reasons why they think that way of the character. A lengthy source on the character helps, but it can still be significant without that. WP:TRIVIAL supports this point of view, which states "The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view. Critical commentary from reputable professional reviewers and are examples of short but significant (i.e. nontrivial) mentions that have been used to establish notability and are useful to write Reception sections"
Then again, how "short" is short? And just how much is enough to write an article? That's a whole nother debate, but you get my point. Either way, my choice would be to keep the article, like I mentioned above.
As for Screenrant, it is determined reliable for entertainment-related topics, which this is, as the very page you linked to mentions. MoonJet (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as the emerging consensus. Agree with the assessment of sources by nominator that there isn't enough to pass the WP:GNG for a separate article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:17, 30 August 2022 (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. ✗plicit 02:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses[edit]

Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses (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 medical organisation. A quick search on news and books turns up only passing mentions. BrigadierG (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep It has 12,000 members, has an annual conference, publications, manages key certification programs, issues awards and receives coverage in the academic press as well as news.
News: Listed as a key nursing specialty group here and here. News coverage of the AMSN PRISM awards can be found, for example, here and here, as well as in a book here.
In Books, listed as the only US body for medical-surgical nursing here, "the professional organization for nurses practicing in medical-surgical settings" here, "the only specialty nursing organization dedicated to the practice of medical-surgical nursing" here . Their certification program is mentioned here and here as part of the general system of certification for Medical-surgical nursing in the US. Books are published on passing this certification (CMSRN), as can be found on a google books search here.
Scholar: The journal the Academy publishes, Medsurg Nursing gets lots of citations. Look at google scholar listings articles here. OsFish (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with keep. A cursory search appears to support the idea that this is a major medical professional organization that plays a role in licensing and continuuing education. It needs to be substantialy expanded, but I don't think it meets deletion criteria.nf utvol (talk) 01:04, 22 August 2022 (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/2022_August_22&oldid=1107607357"