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 Oikonyms in Western and South Asia. I am only placing Oikonyms in Western and South Asia in the result because you're required when closing. However, please discuss the proper place on the talk page. Missvain (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

-patnam

-patnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Dictionary definition about a place name suffix, unencyclopedic.

I found this article from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-wal (2nd nomination), and believe it has the same deletion rationale. Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also adding the below articles to this nomination:

Pur (placename element) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-abad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't believe the deletion of -wal was particularly well-informed, so I'd be weary of using it as a standard of comparison. The articles -abad, -pur and -patnam are not about place names, but about placename suffixes, and extremely common ones too. Content about broad patterns of toponymy is certainly encyclopedic, and the only meaningful question that I see here is about the best way to present that content: as separate articles, or merged into a smaller number of pages covering the broader topics. – Uanfala (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, I will correct my nomination rationale (missed the word suffix), but I still am unsure if placename suffixes as a whole are encyclopedic. After doing more research, it appears that there is an entire category of these suffixes, so these other ones may have to be evaluated individually. Natg 19 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, I'm of the same opinion then as now. We've merged this stuff regularly over the years, from E (prefix) to xe (pronoun). It is just a question of where, and we should be working that out rather than nominating these things for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems like the only deletion rationale is WP:DICDEF? I'm not sure if this is really a reverse disambiguation article, a definition per WP:DICDEF, or a page that requires WP:GNG to be met, but I'm hesitant to vote !delete on a page, even a poorly formatted one, where I learned something interesting, used the page as a launching point, and kept exploring (same with -abad) and while I'm not sure how to assess its notability, I'm not sure deleting this makes the encyclopaedia any better. SportingFlyer T·C 20:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -patnam per WP:NOTDIC. It is a definition and a list of examples. On the other hand, Pur (placename element) might possibly satisfy WP:WORDISSUBJECT, though I am not yet sufficiently convinced one way or the other. Cnilep (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oikonyms in Western and South Asia solves all three of these and they can all be redirected there, as (when the lists and the ridiculous flags are subtracted) there's actually much there as in these, except that I found sources for all of it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • -patnam will need to be added to that list, but I don't mind a redirect. I just don't think this information should be lost. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are lots of sources for -patnam. I've been trying to find the good ones. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't mind a merge/redirect to somewhere, but I don't believe these articles should be standalone articles. Natg 19 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect to Oikonyms in Western and South Asia don't see evidence that this meets GNG but it can certainly be covered in that other article. (t · c) buidhe 08:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Oikonyms in Western and South Asia Lembit Staan (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Oikonyms in Western and South Asia, per above. jp×g 04:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:NAD, absolutely no need to redirect and/or merge CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article Oikonyms in Western and South Asia is not a very suitable merge target for -abad, as the placename component is found beyond West/South Asia. – Uanfala (talk) 10:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Oikonyms in Western and South Asia, most reasonable solution. 17:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 17:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Cerezo Osaka season

2015 Cerezo Osaka season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As discussed here though it technically passes NFOOTY, it comprehensively fails GNG, is possibly a COPYVIO and does not even contain a line of prose, so deletion seems to be the only option here. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from the same issues:

2016 Cerezo Osaka season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017 Cerezo Osaka season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2018 Cerezo Osaka season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Many thanks, Microwave Anarchist (talk) 08:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You can't COPYVIO statistics. These are all valid articles, but they fail WP:NOTSTATS, but failing WP:NOTSTATS is a very easy thing to fix by adding even a little bit of prose. SportingFlyer T·C 10:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added prose to the 2015 season article. It's not great and I'm not sure I can do much else given the language barrier, but the topic's not non-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 11:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And for 2017, when they won a double. SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Thanks for expanding those. I'm happy to withdraw the nom if you have an appetite to expand these but am unsure what to do with the hundreds of ones like this. Perhaps I could move them to draft space for the time being or something like that. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 12:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Microwave Anarchist: Well, I'm not actually happy about having to expand them. I wouldn't mind starting a conversation somewhere about these sorts of articles, more in depth than the one I posted on the football wikiproject. I might support redirecting these somewhere but there's really no perfect answer: it's a type of article which can fail WP:NOT as written improperly, which places these in some sort of weird notability zone. SportingFlyer T·C 12:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Yeah, a wider discussion would be helpful, but imma withdraw this for now. I might go about moving some of these to draftspace, as some other editors have done the same. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 13:10, 3 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Asafo-Akyem bus crash

2021 Asafo-Akyem bus crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Not every fatal automotive accident is notable. This is tragic, but as per WP:NOTNEWS, delete. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom, this is WP:NOTNEWS, no idea why this had been de-proded CommanderWaterford (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Searching for sources for this article, I found articles a plethora of bus crashes deadlier than this in Ghana over the past few years. These are not small tragedies; they are in line with the severity of the bus crashes found at Category:Bus incidents by country. The president of Ghana often makes statements expressing his condolences to the families of the victims. I think eventually, these crashes should be dealt with in an article called Bus incidents in Ghana, or on the pages of the notable Ghanaian highways where these crashes occurred, but these articles have yet to be created. Mottezen (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I find it hard to accept that an accident killing 19 people is not notable. It certainly would be without demur in Western Europe or North America, so I think WP:SYSTEMIC applies here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Necrothesp; the notion of the deaths of 19 people makes it notable enough for Wikipedia - we can't particularly discriminate when we have similar articles from other areas of the world with equal or even less deaths. On the other hand sourcing could be improved. Nightfury 10:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Neither of the keep !votes address the GNG concern. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in fact until now nobody has mentioned a "GNG concern". But, actually, I think it does meet GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a single incident resulting in 19 deaths seems exceptional. NemesisAT (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, multiple independent secondary sources about the accident can be found. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2021 (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 Austin, Texas#Crime. There is a consensus below (between merge and delete contributions) that this article should not remain as a standalone article.

We are then left with the decision either to delete or merge, of which there were good arguments for both. However, ultimately, I find persuasive the argument that it cannot be merged to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021, as it appears to not meet the criteria for that list. Therefore, I am taking the next best option that was discussed, which was to link it (in this case, via a redirect) to Austin, Texas#Crime. However, from the discussion below it was unclear what (if anything) can be merged to that article, hence I have gone redirect, and will leave the decision of whether to merge anything to editorial process (the content of the 2021 Austin shooting article can be found behind the redirect). Daniel (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Austin shooting

2021 Austin shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper or newswire service. I'm getting awfully tired of Wikipedians moonlighting as journalists and/or racing to create anemic pages for current news events without any regard for our notability standards. It is not the job of Wikipedia to report events as they happen. KidAd • SPEAK 01:51, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For now, Merge to List of school shootings in the United States, because even though Wikipedia is not news, the shooting is as of now getting constantly updated by HQ reliable sources such as CNN, ABC News, the Washington Post, and NBC News, notable enough to be a listing in another page. However, we cannot WP:CRYSTALBALL whether a shooting will have long-lasting notability, so I cannot give a definite Keep vote. Also, please leave accusations of bad-faith to a minimum. Don't state users are "moonlighting as journalists" to create these articles; you're right Wikipedia is not a news organization, but do not assume users who create articles like these are trying to make it that. 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't a school shooting, but it could be merged into List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021. Wgullyn (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, man, I misread that! Thank you for catching that. Man, my brain just does not work right, ya know? 👨x🐱 (talk) 02:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now - I'll start leaning towards a keep!vote if something noteworthy comes up during this event, but until then, this was definitely created WP:TOOSOON. I only created the Indianapolis FedEx shooting article once they announced some official casualty numbers, and I think we all should exercise similar conduct and caution when dealing with these kinds of events from now on. From my experience, 90 percent of breaking news coverage describing shootings with "multiple victims" winds up being something that's considerably less than what the word "multiple" implies. Love of Corey (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 Curbon7 (talk) 02:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'd like to point out that only three people have been shot in this incident, therefore it doesn't count as a mass shooting according to the definition Wikipedia uses. And we have no idea how this situation is ultimately going to be resolved. Love of Corey (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - if this is to be merged, it should be to Austin, Texas#Crime. Jim Michael (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm changing my earlier vote to Keep. The shooting's ended, the suspect is in custody, and news sources agree on the events. Wgullyn (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Three dead, and a surprisingly lengthy manhunt that garnered news attention is in my book notable enough. Sergei zavorotko (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any policy to support that or just WP:ILIKEIT? KidAd • SPEAK 22:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 per WP:NOTNOTABLE. One example is the NYC shooting on April 6, 2021; a domestic incident with four dead. It's notable to have it's spot in the list, but not its own article. Kellis7 00:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The suspect has now been captured, and he is not injured, thus leaving the total number of casualties at three. Therefore, I would caution the admins not to merge this to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 as others have proposed should it come to that, given this incident is one victim short of fulfilling Wikipedia's official definition of a mass shooting. I agree with Jim Michael's proposal to merge the article to Austin, Texas#Crime. Love of Corey (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The national news outlet CNN, just fifty minutes ago, gave another update about the event. Even though there are only three casualties, it is possible that if the national news is updating this constantly on the shooting, it may have long-lasting notability. We can't WP:CRYSTALBALL that, however, so merge into another article just in case. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I am likewise tired of this and think that WP:CRYSTALBALL needs to be remembered. I agree that this doesn't even need merging anywhere - there is no information here that is due for any of our encyclopedia articles. We are an encyclopedia, not a news ticker or list of crimes committed - and as such, delete without prejudice to revisiting in at least three months to see if there is significant coverage. If there is continued significant coverage months after an event, then it certainly is no longer routine coverage - but news articles about crime are by definition routine, no matter how in depth those news articles are. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTNEWS, this was a criminal act and sequential arrest, not a notable criminal act. WikiVirusC^(talk) 13:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - Keep, or merge into List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 or Austin, Texas#Crime. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind also bolding the "merge" part of your comment to make that part of your vote also clear to the admins? Love of Corey (talk) 08:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Love of Corey (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge agree with other editors above, add this to the list of mass shootings, sad as that may be. Also agree that this the editor who cited that this particular criminal is not particularly noteworthy.^{[clarification needed]} Star7924 (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgullyn: @HumanxAnthro: @Curbon7: @Kellis7: @Jax 0677: @Star7924: You may want to revisit your "merge" comments above. This article is not eligible for inclusion on List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 as it is not a "mass shooting". It would need to be merged elsewhere, if anywhere. Regards, WWGB (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - "merge into List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021 or Austin, Texas#Crime" --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jax 0677: I don't understand. It doesn't meet the inclusion criteria for that article, why do you want it to be merged? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - "or Austin, Texas#Crime" --Jax 0677 (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There really is no other choice in this situation. Love of Corey (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just chiming into say that this should be deleted, not merged. It doesn't meet the inclusion criteria for List of mass shootings in the United States in 2021, the above !votes were made in error. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just one of many family shootings in the US, and not particularly notable. WWGB (talk) 07:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cop going on a killing spree with three dead is notable. Patapsco913 (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2021 (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.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2037 Bomber

2037 Bomber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:COATRACK article about what Clinton-era Congressional crystal gazers thought the U.S. bomber fleet should look like in 2037. The concept (if you can even call it that) was dropped within a year in favor of a stop-gap solution. Nothing worth merging. Schierbecker (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - no article is perfect, more sources could be added, but this one is adequately sourced. XavierItzm (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is being nominated for deletion because of its lack of notability. Quality is irrelevant. Your comment seems out of place. Schierbecker (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I see now that you just vote keep on every AfD with the same boilerplate argument, whether it fits or not. Makes sense now. Schierbecker (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Great ad-hominem, instead of addressing the issue, which is that the article is well sourced enough, with coverage across years in media such as Popular_Science, Wired (magazine), etc. We go by the sources here. XavierItzm (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or possibly merge into Long Range Strike Bomber with a redirect. Doesn't need to exist on its own. Intothatdarkness 18:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Intothatdarkness: Would B-2 Spirit make a better target? I attempted to accurately summarize the program with this edit. The slightly more contemporaneous Next-Generation Bomber would be my second pick. Schierbecker (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with the Next-Generation Bomber if we're looking for something more contemporaneous. Intothatdarkness 13:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Next-Generation Bomber. Not enough on its own but will improve the Next-Generation Bomber page. Mztourist (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to most applicable other article. Buckshot06 (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer - there is nothing on the TP about a WP:COATRACK issue.
  It is false that the concept was "dropped in one year". The article itself makes it clear that it was the official policy of the US Air Force from 1999 to 2006 to have a 2037 Bomber; i.e. from the 1999 Bomber Roadmap to the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. On these grounds alone the AfD ought to be rejected with prejudice.
  Furthermore, consider the sources over the years (among the other sources in the article):

• Airforce Magazine 1999
• Airforce Magazine 2004
• Wired (magazine) 2007
• Air Force Association 2007
• Congressional Research Service 2008
• Popular_Science 2009
• Center for Public Integrity 2014
• IRSEM 2015
• Ars Technica 2016

If we go by sources, the notability of the topic is well established.XavierItzm (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have USAF sources pinning the death of the "2037 bomber" much earlier. The 1999 White Paper on on Long Range Bombers (March 1999) set the 2037 goalpost. However, by the time the 1999 bomber study was revisited in 2001, USAF thinking had accelerated the timeline by four to seven years the White Paper on Long-Range Strike (November 2001).

The last bomber service life analysis was accomplished in FY98-FY99. This study indicated a Mission Area Assessment was required in 2013 to support a bomber replacement IOC date of 2037. However, changes in planned force structure and deletion of most B-52 low-level flying may have invalidated previous service life conclusions and require new analysis. The Air Force is beginning the Long-Range Strike Aircraft X (LRSA-X) study to examine bomber replacement timelines. Study goal is to start an acquisition program in the 2012 to 2015 timeframe.

• It is par for the course that neither the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review nor the 2006 QDR you mentioned pay any homage to any prior development efforts or timeline.

• There is also no evidence that any development work began before the timeline was fast-tracked. The 1999 white paper said that defining the Mission Area Assessment—the very first milestone—would need to begin by 2013. If this bomber was alive c. 2006, which it wasn't, then development wouldn't begin for seven more years. All the 1999 white paper does is ask lawmakers and Pentagon officials to hold their pennies for a new bomber project 15 years down the road. It does not a development program make. This bomber never existed. Schierbecker (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - When the article was nominated, it had six sources from 1999 to 2008. It now has twice as many sources, ranging from 1999 to 2016. It really is incredible how sources written in three separate decades, i.e., the 1990's, the 2000's, and the 2010's keep citing the 2037 Bomber. This might be a WP:HEY case. In any event, no evidence was ever raised for the original claim for deletion: that this was a WP:COATRACK and a subject that "was dropped within one year". XavierItzm (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You'll need to do better than these sources.

• Wired, 2007; A blog post which does no original reporting, quotes a Defense News article's source, an analyst, saying “I don’t believe in Santa Claus and I don’t believe in the 2037 bomber. It’s a mythical beast. It’s just not there. I don’t know why the Air Force even talks about it.” This source was being used on the Wikipedia entry to claim that specific technologies would be included in the bomber. The author's apparent inability to separate their own speculation and opinion from Defense News's reporting makes this an unreliable source. Moreover, Air Force sources I have read do not make specific claims about technology readiness in the 2037 timeframe. Defining mission requirements would not happen until before 2013, as I have already stated. This should have been a tip-off to you.

• Popular Science, 2009; mentions the mythical 2037 bomber in passing but goes on at length to describe the 2018 bomber competition. It seems the editor who added that source failed to read the Popular Science article properly and thought the unmanned, undetectable fully-fleshed out future aircraft was the 2037 bomber. *facepalm*

• Future Timeline Celeb birthday/horoscope-tier web portal that contains a WP:CIRCULAR reference back to Wikipedia and no original reporting.

• This two-page French Air Force brief from 2015 is highly dubious because it is vague and does no original reporting.

• The US Air Force, for its part, predicted in a controversial 1999 report (Bomber Roadmap) that the replacement of the B-52H (entered service in 1961) and B-2A (1993) bombers by a new generation will not take place until 2037.
• The service later changed course in 2004 saying it would need a new medium bomber from 2020 (without canceling the 2037 Bomber program) in order to cope with the proliferation of new

anti-aircraft systems (anti-access / area-denial)[...]

• The provenience of this information from events that supposedly occurred nine years prior is not explained. The claim that the bomber was alive until 2004, especially when it contradicts contemporaneous American reporting on the Long-Range Strike white paper three years earlier, is highly suspect.

• Stuffing an article with irrelevant sources is idea laundering, not improving the encyclopedia. Schierbecker (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I agree that the source futuretimeline that was there was not a WP:RS, and which someone had baselessly added in 2017. See, you really help improve the quality of the article when you constructively edit instead of nuking.XavierItzm (talk) 18:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or possibly merge - More than enough coverage and sources for an article. (This could be covered in another article if needed.) -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This article was previously nominated for deletion in 2014,2016 and 2018. This article was previously merged and then demerged from Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit in January 2021. In addition to the unsupported nom claims of WP:COATRACK and of "dropped within a year", it is clear procedures were not followed and no WP:BEFORE was carried out. XavierItzm (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since there was no consensus (or no discussion either), the Jan. 2021 attempt does not count as valid attempt imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Minor correction: The content I summarized on the B-2 Spirit page is still present in the form I wrote. The redirect was the only edit that was reversed. Schierbecker (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - per WP:HEYMANN, the article ought to not be deleted. It's had 55 edits since it was nominated to AfD. At nomination the article was 4,193 bytes. It is now 11,503 bytes. Since nomination, the article has been edited by 11 different editors, by my count. It has more than twice as many sources. Sources have been eliminated where warranted. And this is not to mention the serious vices in the original nomination, which include lack of a WP:BEFORE, unsubstantiated claims, etc. XavierItzm (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Buddy, I've stalked this page for well over a decade and spent several days trying to find any evidence that this concept was ever pursued beyond one service life projection 22 years ago. I didn't parachute into this AfD with no understanding of the issues. You did. Schierbecker (talk) 06:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, buddy. So you should know that per Wikipedia policy you were required to check the repeated attempts to delete or merge the page in 2014, 2016, 2018, and January 2021, all of which failed. But it appears you failed to do a basic WP:BEFORE. You may or may not have parachuted in, but you certainly didn't follow procedure. Besides, you continue to misrepresent that from 1999 to 2006 the Air Force's official plan was to develop a 2037 Bomber.XavierItzm (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you freaking kidding me?? This article was PROPOSED for deletion twice and nominated for Speedy Deletion once, all by the same user (who is now blocked). Contesting a Proposed Deletion or Speedy Deletion does not carry any prejudice against further discussion regarding merging or deleting an article at AfD. RTFM.

The termination date of 2001 is sourced within the article, but go off sis. Schierbecker (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have struck and removed my 'Merge' vote. Article now explains a clear concept. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The sourcing has improved, but the WP:COATRACK issue identified in the delete rationale remains. I do not think we should have an article entitled 2037 Bomber since not only does no such bomber exist, no specific plans for one were ever drawn up. What is of substance in the article is documentation of the requirements planning of US air defence policy, and neither the title nor the categories the article belongs to should suggest otherwise. I'm open to renaming this article, but rather than have this article remain under this title, I would !vote to merge it to Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider as the least distant article, under which the material could exist under the history section. Note further that if we cannot find several RSes that refer to this idea under the term 2037 Bomber, then the term falls foul of our policy per WP:NEOLOGISM; specifically, the Congressional sources I looked at do not support this as an established usage. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "2037 bomber" has a fair amount of common usage in primary sources, but it shouldn't be capitalized as a proper noun. Schierbecker (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2021 (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. This is another instance of the ages-old question of whether WP:GNG trumps a WP:SNG or vice versa. In this case at least, I think that the arguments that GNG takes precedence are stronger.

The SNG invoked, WP:NFOOTY, makes clear that those who meet its criteria are "presumed" notable. As our article about presumptions in law explains, there are rebuttable and irrebuttable presumptions. NFOOTY is silent about what kind of presumption it refers to, but GNG is not. It makes clear that the presumption of notability it establishes is a rebuttable one, by noting that "a more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article". That is also the only construction of a presumption of notability in the context of a guideline that is consistent with core policy, namely WP:V and as relevant here also WP:BLP. These core policies establish projectwide sourcing requirements that cannot be subverted by an irrebuttable presumption of notability purportedly established by a guideline. For these reasons, we must construe the presumption of notability established by NFOOTY as a rebuttable one.

The rest of the SNG NFOOTY is part of, WP:NSPORT, does not lead to a different conclusion. While its lead sentence does state that "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", which could be read as allowing NSPORTS to establish notability in cases that do not meet GNG, its answer 2 in its FAQ clarifies that "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline." This also makes clear that the presumption established by NSPORTS is rebuttable by showing that GNG is not met.

In the present case, this presumption has been rebutted. This discussion has established without substantial counter-arguments that there are not enough reliable sources about this person to meet WP:GNG and by extension WP:BLP. It follows that based on the policy-informed consensus established in this discussion that the article must be deleted. Sandstein 09:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abdellatif Aboukoura

Abdellatif Aboukoura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Meets WP:NFOOTY, but fails WP:GNG completely. Mentioned in one source which isn't independent[3], and got one line in another source (reliable? importance?)[4]. None of the 39 Google hits[5] give any indepth attention to him. Considering that this is a current, male player in the US, none of the usual excuses of why no sources are available online seem valid. He may of course become notable later in his career, but for now he is a prime example of why one appearance in a minor (but professional) league, is no guarantee at all of being even remotely notable. Fram (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He is young player that made his debut in Loudoun United's first game of the season. He meets WP:NFOOTY and is just starting his career. Generally, these players have been given more leeway when it comes to GNG. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Players not meeting the GNG have been given more leeway? WP:TOOSOON is the tradition, not WP:DEBUT. Create the article when he does meet the WP:GNG instead. Fram (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't too soon, this is an actual consensus here, see here. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes NFOOTY aged only 16. Will very likely only keep on making more and more fully-pro appearances in the (near) future. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. There is longstanding consensus to allow young players at the start of their career who meet NFOOTBALL the time to be shown to meet GNG. GiantSnowman 20:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes NFOOTY, and has active career.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for confirming that, for everything they claim in discussions on WP:NSPORTS, the football people are just as bad as the cricket people when it comes to defend non-notable players who meet an arbitrary threshold but don't have a single shred of evidence that they are already anywhere near meeting the GNG. WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL apply to all articles, speculation that someone will become notable is all fine and dandy, but articles should only be created when this has actually happened. No idea why this should be different for football players, apart from the sheer number of football fans on here who can disregard normal procedures for their pet articles. Fram (talk) 07:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for confirming that various WikiProjects' worst fears about your proposed changes are correct. Nominating an article about a 16 year old who made his professional soccer debut for deletion within 90 minutes of the article being created?! GiantSnowman 09:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what about it? If i had nominated it today, would that have made any difference at all? Would there be either more sources, or would any of you have voted otherwise? No, of course not. If your worst fears are that you will need an actual indepth source for an article about a current American sportsperson, then you seriously need to rethink your priorities and your goal, and whether they are still inline with the general requirements of Enwiki. Yes, your worst fear is apparently that sports biographies can no longer ignore the general requirements and continue creating articles for not yet notable persons as much as they want to. If you needed confirming that I and many others oppose this, then you should reread what I wrote. This article is exactly the kind of article that my NSPORTS proposal targets, what else did you expect? That it was a proposal with no consequences? I don't know why you act surprised or shocked here. Fram (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a child actor gets nominated for an Oscar. Someone creates a stub straight away on the basis that they are presumed to meet GNG as a result. Will there be in-depth articles immediately? No. Will there be a day, a week, a month later? Yes. That principle applies here. GiantSnowman 09:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You really think that a child actor who is good enough to receive a nomination, won't have received indepth attention prior to it for his acting role? (Never mind that we have 20 oscar nominations per year for acting, but a few 1000 soccer debuts per year in the pro leagues). The problem (well, one of the problems) is that the bar for some sports is so much lower than the comparison you make, and that it isn't certain at all that they will get more attention (or more matches). It may happen, or they may fade into obscurity. Until the sources exist, no article should be made (a redirect perhaps, if a good target exists, e.g. a team-season article). To make a perhaps better comparison in the same vein, we don't create articles for actors who have had their first named but minor role in a minor Hollywood movie. Yes, they are "professional" actors, playing in a major league, and yet they aren't automatically notable. Fram (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

None of this would be a problem if there were, you know, actual sources available to flesh out the article that don't end in -occerway. SportingFlyer T·C 10:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If only you directed half the attention you do to soccer articles as should be done to minor politicians/actors/musicians etc... GiantSnowman 11:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG as there is no significant coverage on the subject. I can't find a single indepth article about the subject and none has been presented in this Afd. WP:NFOOTY does not supersede the general notability guideline, passing WP:NFOOTY only means that there supposedly enough significant coverage on the subject for it to pass the general notability guideline and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The subject still has to have significant coverage which Aboukoura does not have. Alvaldi (talk) 10:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:NFOOTY. Literally states at the top showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below, which, for association football, Aboukoura meets the sports specific criteria. Heck, if you check the top of Wikipedia:Notability, you will literally read It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right"... the key words being either and or which, again, Aboukoura meets. We also do have a consensus that younger players just starting their careers who meet WP:NFOOTY are presumed notable. So I am not sure if you are correct here. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFOOTY does not supersede WP:GNG. The FAQ from the top of WP:NFOOTY clearly states as much:

Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

(JoelleJay's answer here below also goes into this in detail). And there is absolutely no consensus that younger players starting there career have any leeway from the WP:GNG. The consensus is clearly stated in WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON. Alvaldi (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I understand the NFOOTY presumption, but Loudoun United is a reserve team, and he has not yet received WP:GNG-qualifying coverage. In other circumstances, I'd advocate draftifying or even keeping - I don't mind the rule active young players who play one WP:NFOOTY-qualifying match can be kept as long as there's some information about them - but, combined with the reserve team element, there's a paucity of anything written about him. WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 10:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I am not sure I get deleting because he happened to make his debut for a reserve team. Yeah, Loudoun is the reserve side of D.C. United but they are technically separate entities between Major League Soccer and USL Championship. The "reserve sides" in USL are supposed to meet professional standards that are no different from all the other clubs, including the independents. They are required to sign players to professional contracts who are not contracted to their MLS team and, if the MLS team does wants to call them up, they have to sign a separate contract (the short-team deal being just one of the methods used)... another example is a player like Jared Stroud who was signed by New York Red Bulls II in March 2018 and then had to sign a separate Major League Soccer deal when he was "called-up" into the first team. Even players like Aboukoura need to sign an Amateur contract in order to play, which are limited, and no different to what other USLC clubs are allowed. If anything, this is similar to when a club in say, the Premier League, plays a youth squad player who hasn't signed his first contact yet, just in USL Championship.

So again, I just don't agree with the reserve team thing. Yeah, Loudoun is the reserve team but it isn't like how FC Barcelona B is the reserve team to FC Barcelona and their is complete free movement. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, my argument for deleting is that he completely fails WP:GNG. And if this is true, we should take a look at USL being a FPL. SportingFlyer T·C 13:56, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Youth players in every club sign academy contracts, whether in Europe or the America's. Almost every French player, for example, is on a youth contract until they turn fully pro - and often have caps and significant coverage before they do so. Also, how can Abdellatif Aboukoura fail GNG, when he has a sporting profile on major footballing aggregates like USSDA, ESPN, MaisFutebol, Tribuna etc? Frankly, I think pretending having a profile on major sports websites should count towards notability, and would be ridiculous to pretend otherwise. And he's mentioned in dozens of game analysis, which to me makes him pass GNG as part of WP:NOTROUTINE.@SportingFlyer:--Ortizesp (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that he is mentioned in "dozens" of game analysis, he hardly gets to "dozens" of mentions if you include Wikipedia-mirrors. Or do you mean the many sites copying the same games results and statistics? That's not "analysis", that's the most basic and robotic summary. There is e.g. no one at Tribuna or at MaisFutebol who has actually entered the information for Aboukoura into their website (never mind checked it), they just automatically copy some other websites. Having X websites each posting all the exact same statistical information is not an indication of notability, no matter what the barely used essay WP:NOTROUTINE tries to say (basically voiding WP:ROUTINE and WP:NOT). Fram (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the robotic summary is good enough since they are from reliable sources. And I think his mentions below in various sporting events that may or may not be WP:NOTROUTINE add to the argument to keep the page: non-routine game report, youth contract, game report, pre-game report, pre game report, youth report. I doubt either side is going to see eye to eye, since I think passing WP:FOOTY is and should be equivalent to passing WP:GNG, and clearly my threshold for notability is lower than yours.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why should sports bios have a standard of SIGCOV so utterly divorced from the SIGCOV required for every other bio? JoelleJay (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If only Aboukoura were also a professor... SportingFlyer T·C 19:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are pretending that databases can't count as SIGCOV... as if several of these don't provide more than enough reliable information to create a page. If you guys wish, you are free to start a Professorpedia, or argue for looser requirements for academia instead of potentially destroying thousands of articles.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pretending? Databases have never been considered automatic SIGCOV. From NSPORT: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases. From N: Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. None of the databases linked above have anything more than routine match stats and certainly do not provide direct, in-depth coverage of the subject. JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said databases always provide automatic SIGCOV, they may or may not. But the match stats I think are WP:NOTROUTINE, and the databases (such as ESPN) sometimes do provide in-depth coverage of subjects (althought admittedly not of Aboukoura in this case). However, I think the supplementary articles as well as passing NFOOTY as it stands is enough to make it kept.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a "supplementary article" which spends more than a sentence on Aboukoura, and as has been said, WP:NOTROUTINE is an essay which basically contradicts our guidelines and policies in an attempt to justify having articles like this one. How statistics given for every match can be considered anything but routine coverage is not made clear, never mind how such stats can be seen as indepth coverage of the player. It's just a bunch of websites all repeating each other with a different layout and ads, it's not as if people are actively creating profiles of Aboukoura on those sites. Fram (talk) 08:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then go argue against WP:NOTROUTINE, as it stands I think it validates keeping this page.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTCRIT is clear databases don't count as SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 22:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting, sometimes they can, sometimes they can't.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict In order: Our Sports Central appears to have reprinted a press release of a match report, and match reports don't count for notability; Arlington Soccer is functionally a press release promoting the fact that Aboukoura played there; kicker.de is simply a statistical match report; The Daily Miami News appears to be a copyvio of Black and Red United, which is a fan blog; Black and Red United is said fan blog (they're the same article); and Top Drawer Soccer just lists a heap of players who are available for a youth camp. None of those come close to qualifying for WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notable enough to me, especially when combined with the quality databases.--Ortizesp (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. NSPORT is clear that for notability purposes a topic must meet GNG. That a minority of editors continue to misunderstand the second sentence (which is for temporary sourcing purposes) or ignore the explicit intent of NSPORT entirely does not make a BLP suddenly magically immune to GNG requirements. JoelleJay (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but why are you using half a sentence to make a point? The full sentence is The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. the key here being or the sport specific criteria set forth below. Go down to Association football and you see Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football which Aboukoura does satisfy. We have had past AfD's like the one I referenced here where the consensus is that for a young player just starting their career who at least satisfies WP:NFOOTY, they are presumed notable. So we are not ignoring the anything, this is literally a consensus by the wiki footballing community. If you would like to make a sitewide change for footballers, be my guest and propose and discuss but this article does satisfy the criteria and the general consensus. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the FAQs at the very top of the page:

Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

The first sentence of NSPORT also says This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The close of this well-attended RfC reaffirmed the status of NSPORT as subordinate to GNG: There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. NFOOTY (or any other sports SNG) is not a guideline outside of NSPORT; it is specifically held to NSPORT criteria which presumes a subject will meet GNG. This is acknowledged by almost all admins who have actually read and understand the notability guidelines. See, for example, the closing statements for the vast majority of recent closely-contested athlete AfDs:

JoelleJay (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so per the FAQ you presented above, the answer is that sources must eventually be presented to pass GNG, not that from the very moment the article is created. The second sentence in that answer indicates that the line referenced is to emphasize that there must be a reliable source indicating that the article is at least "meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline. which, Aboukoura does. He played at least 13 minutes in the first game of the season in a WP:FPL, which clearly satisfies WP:NFOOTY.

Also, I am referencing WP:N, where is clearly states at the top "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:" and "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right". There is a standing consensus on WP:NFOOTY that for players like this, who are just starting their careers, are young, currently active with a WP:NFOOTY that they are considered notable. IF you disagree, you are more than welcome to start a discussion and we can have a wiki-wide AfD. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We had such a wiki-wide RfC recently, resulting in this change: this clarifies that while SNGs (like NFOOTY) give a presumption of notability, the article subject still needs to have the coverage required to meet the GNG if it wants to have a standalone article. The "presumption" is a general indicator, but when challenged (e.g. at AfD) evidence must be produced that this presumption is in this case correct. Otherwise we would simply say "A topic merits an article", not "is presumed to merit an article". Fram (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I have read that section a few times now and I can't see at any time where it says "Every single article on wikipedia absolutely needs to meet WP:GNG from the moment it is created, WP:SNG's be damned" and honestly, it wouldn't make sense to have anything else besides WP:GNG if that was the case. For example, what is the point of anything in WP:NFOOTY or even WP:FPL? You might as well just say that an article on a player or manager must meet GNG from creation instead of even having discussions on what leagues count as fully-professional or not. But no, this argument, from my perspective, does not work. None of those guidelines are absolutely explicit and we have had general consensus allowing young players leeway with Spiderone (talk · contribs) giving a great response in the last link: "the player passed WP:NFOOTBALL a few hours ago, making his debut in the top tier of Scottish football. We give leeway in such cases because of the likelihood that they will build on such appearances. Deleting articles that only just pass the SNG should only really apply in cases where the player has been playing outside of the professional level for several years and is extremely unlikely to ever play at that level again. Otherwise, we will just end up AfDing every single player on the day that they make their debut and it would get silly."

The purpose of NSPORT is to permit articles on actually notable subjects to exist in mainspace with just a single source demonstrating the subject is presumed notable per the relevant SSG; this protects them from being immediately targeted for deletion (due to lack of multiple SIGCOV), particularly in cases where a standard BEFORE might not be sufficient to find offline or non-English sources. Ideally, if the SSGs were correctly calibrated to GNG, this would save editor time by reducing the number of BEFOREs/AfDs, as people familiar with the SSG won't bother with scrutinizing the notability of the topic if they feel confident in the SSG's presumption of notability. However, it has become extremely clear that almost all SSGs are uncoupled from the GNG to the extent that certain SSG criteria are decidedly poor predictors of GNG, necessitating more BEFOREs/AfDs to keep up with the high rates of creation. Also, Dylan Reid debuted at the highest level of Scottish football, while Aboukoura is in the USL -- these are not equivalent leagues with equivalent coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So again, this is a young player, 16 years old, who has played in a WP:FPL, has a decent amount of time on the pitch in the first game of the season who is still on the roster and most likely to continue playing. We have a general consensus that these articles pass, especially when they're young and likely to continue playing. If anything, you are trying to enforce this discussion which hasn't even been completed and is still being discussed and still would just say that these types of articles are discouraged but not "not allowed at all". And for me, I don't just mass create articles but I will make them when an American-based player does make their debut and make sure that we are following the basics of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many players already have received attention before their debut, and then get additional attention once they have actually played. Claiming that one couldn't make articles about debut players if this rule was applied is not true, see e.g. Bart Verbruggen: debut this weekend, the article doesn't have additional sources, but plenty of sources are available, e.g. De Morgen, BN DeStem, Sporza and older ones as well([6]). The requirement that such sources exist is not an insurmountable burden or some anti-football ploy, and a project-consensus that debutants can have their articles without actually having indepth sources is a worthless local consensus which encourages the creation of such articles, but has no value in actual discussion like this one. The proposal at NSPORTS just wants to make it more obvious that one shouldn't create articles without at least one source which counts towards the GNG, but in the end that requirement already exists. There is no harm in waiting until the sources which are sure to come (according to the keepers here) actually materialize, then you a) are sure that the topic meets the GNG, and b) have something to actually write an article instead of regurgitating some minimal statistics. Fram (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have sources and references to the player, you just don't like them because you are trying to prove a point. And there is harm in waiting to make the page, you're going to waste an incredible amount of time AFDing pages that are just going to have pages anyways - most if not all which have valid arguments for being kept. Not sure what pains you so much about having these extra sportsperson articles, it's not like you are paying for Wikipedia's servers yourself.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"And there is harm in waiting to make the page, you're going to waste an incredible amount of time AFDing pages that are just going to have pages anyways"??? If people would wait to make those pages until the sources are there, there wouldn't be any reason to AfD them. As for "you just don't like the sources", well, true, but not because I want to make a point, but because they are in general not accepted as giving any notability to subjects. It's like a painting that is in the collection of some museum: it isn't notable because it is in the collection or because it is listed in the database of all museum holdings: it is only notable when it gets significant attention as a painting on its own, with some discussion which goes beyond dimensions, material, school/origin, and date of acquisition. If this is all we have on a painting, it shouldn't have an article. And the same goes for the subject and the sources here. Fram (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the second sentence relates to sourcing for presumption of notability, not for demonstrating notability upon challenge. It is a stand-in, not an eternal replacement for GNG (Q1 says as much). "Eventually" refers to the eventual incorporation of already-existing SIGCOV into the article; it's also dependent on the community having confidence in the criteria presuming notability, which is not the case here. Additionally, WP:N is referring to any SNGs that do supersede GNG (NPROF), which NSPORT does not. But even if it did defer to all SNGs, NSPORT itself makes clear that it is subordinate to GNG. NFOOTY is not a true guideline, it is a rule-of-thumb (SSG) that is beholden to the requirements of NSPORT. JoelleJay (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The second sentence literally says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below"... I am pointing out that it passes the second part after or. Nothing up there is definitive.
• Dependent on community? Mate, the majority here have supported that since this is a young player in a WP:FPL that the article should be kept. It is only you, Fram, and Alvadi going against it, which you all have tried in previous discussions I linked above. I get it, you don't like these stubs but there is a clear consensus in the past that these types of articles are okay.
• WP:N literally says "or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right... WP:NSPORT is literally on the right. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read any of the FAQs or my response above detailing exactly what the purpose of NSPORT is? Because there shouldn't be any confusion there if you actually comprehend what these say. And I don't know why you're still stuck on what N says (the language there is providing for any SNG that operates separately from GNG, and since only NPROF asserts that status at the moment N does only refer to NPROF as an alternative to GNG), when NSPORT, from the very first sentence, positions all SSGs as needing to meet GNG to merit an article. Why do you think this sentence is there? And by "community" I mean the actual wider WP community (like in the village pump RfC I linked above which closed with a clear consensus on this topic) and not the local consensus of football fans whose low notability threshold is what gets us into all these AfDs in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I read all of it and yeah, I comprehend it all. Not sure why I can't focus on what WP:N says, that is where GNG is and other details, seems to make sense to me. Also... please don't do this... WP:NSPORT literally says "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". I understand what an "or" means in a sentence. Looking through the RfD, there were plenty of discussions regarding sportsmen who could eventually satisfy GNG plus stubs which can eventually be expanded, this article being one of them. There is a very good chance that will happen considering that the subject is only 16 and already playing with a fully-professional club and that we are only 1 game into the season. Also, you're last part about football fans and the low notability threshold seems to hold a lot of the same hostility seen from regular WP:PROF editors in the discussion, as if the consensus being made by football fans or regular football editors means almost nothing. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant what WP:N says because either it says GNG must be met for every SNG, or it says an SNG like NSPORT can establish notability (which it does not), and NSPORT explicitly says its criteria is based on meeting GNG so we're at exactly the same place as before. And what do you think the first sentence in NSPORT is there for, if not to establish NSPORT as a predictor of and ultimately dependent upon GNG? How do the following statements from NSPORT make sense if you interpret the "or" as if it applies to determining notability rather than demonstrating there is sourcing that shows a subject is likely to meet GNG sourcing?

The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it.[1][2][3][4] Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.

In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements for those types of articles.

The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics).

(Also see the rest of WP:SPORTCRIT). These statements are also predicated on the subject already having GNG coverage that editors just haven't found yet; "eventually" obviously does not apply to BLPs that demonstrably fail GNG now but might have SIGCOV in the future. That is what WP:DRAFTIFY is for. JoelleJay (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that he has WP:NOTROUTINE coverage, and that combined with the various references and database supplementing we have enough to pass WP:GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per consensus at the Dylan Reid AfD. A near-identical case. It's worth noting that players very rarely show a clear passing of GNG when they debut. Heck, even Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo were stubs at one point. NSPORT is still a guideline with value and while I agree that GNG is the guideline that ultimately all articles on sportspeople must meet, I believe that it would be disruptive to enforce it on a player that has literally just made their professional debut. There is clear consensus from previous discussions that we give a little bit of leeway (exactly how much leeway is, of course, a matter for some debate) in such cases to allow the article to be built while their career progresses. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does USL guarantee the same amount and depth of coverage as a Premiership league does? Because if not, these are very different cases. JoelleJay (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Dylan Reid had marginal coverage, including from the BBC. Aboukoura has none yet. SportingFlyer T·C 10:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure how much coverage the USL generally gets as I'm British. I did think it would be similar to the English Championship, though. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to dip into WP:OTHERSTUFF for a moment here. There's a confusing amount of discrepency between how WP:FOOTY handles the U.S. vs England. Like NPSL or USL League Two teams here might not fit WP:GNG but a team from the tenth division like Ollerton Town F.C. or Elburton Villa F.C. get pages. Taking that to the professional level the amount of coverage varies a ton from team to team in the U.S. since each market has different interest levels. A team like Louisville City FC is going to get more coverage than any reserve team or the Charlotte Independence. If that makes sense. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm a USL player will receive nowhere near the same amount of coverage as a Championship player. A Championship player, even a marginal one, will likely have nationwide coverage in England. As ColeTrain4EVER points out, a USL player may not even be covered in their home city or town (which is the case here) because the league receives no national coverage at all and coverage will vary from city to city depending on how popular the team is. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: He made an appearance in a league listed on WP:FPL. Loudoun United is a professional team and that makes him WP:GNG. I hate to be this blunt while everyone is talking about sources and it being a reserve team, but that follows the method set point blank. If the method set by WP:FOOTY is problem that shouldn't be discussed here. Under the current rules he fits it. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say being on a FPL team "makes [someone] GNG"? That is just flatly a fabrication. JoelleJay (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football Number 2. Quote, "Players who have played, and managers who have managed, in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues will generally be regarded as notable." Please also note I did not say just "being on a FPL team" makes them notable. I said making an appearance does. Aboukoura has done that. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing WP:NFOOTY only means that the subject supposedly is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and hence pass the general notability guideline as is stated on the top of WP:NSPORT (right above the FAQ that explains in detail that the SNG's don't supersede the general notability guideline). Like so many similiar one-game-woners, Aboukoura has no coverage, only trivial mentions and database entries that don't go towards GNG as is clearly stated in WP:NSPORT. How a person nobody cares to write about can be considered notable is honestly quite baffling. And arguments that a subject is young and might get the coverage later is exactly the reason we have WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Alvaldi (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Spiderone. this all seems quite WP:POINTY to me. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:TOOSOON, no significant coverage, does not pass WP:GNG. The presumption of notability made by WP:NFOOTY appears to be demonstrably false here. List at WP:BTWN if he turns out to be the next Messi. —Kusma (t·c) 12:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG, and that is what actually matters here; even more so when the SNG clearly does not serve it's primary objective (as a guide to the likelihood of meeting GNG) for subjects barely scraping over its very low bar. The local consensus of the footy project is irrelevant. Predictions of future career progression and coverage are worthless. The article can be recovered and recreated should significant coverage ever materialise. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This individual hasn't been noticed by any significant secondary sources; they do not magically become notable because they stepped onto a pitch (and were entered into some database(s)). If this individual was truly notable for appearing in a certain game, it would have been reported in sources and they would pass the GNG. NFOOTY is a presumption of notability, but as Kusma said above, the presumption here is false - the individual is simply not (yet) notable. -M.Nelson (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is ridiculous. You know what, let's get rid of WP:NFOOTY and WP:NSPORT. They're basically useless if everything is going to boil back down to WP:GNG. Like, it literally makes no sense to have either of those if we are not going to discuss the nuance of the situation and just boil it all down to GNG. Forget debating consistently on what makes a fully-professional league, forget having standards on WP:NSPORT. What's the point? A player in the Uganda Premier League would be notable if they had considerable coverage despite playing in a non-professional league while a player in the South African Premier Division would be deleted if they made 1 appearance despite playing in a league deemed fully-professional... so what is the point? You tell me. I would get if Aboukoura was 28 years old, his only WP:FPL season was at the age of 18 and he has since stopped playing professionally, I get it. But he is 16, he just started his career in a fully-professional league, the second top league in the United States, and is still an active player in his club's roster after the first game of the season. We can safely presume his notability based on that and we have in the past in discussions like this.

But i get it. Ya'll are trying to make a point because you're frustrated with these policies. You don't like that a player like this is "notable" while a professor or academic is not. If that is the case, get rid of these other policies and make GNG the only rule. Go for it. It's quite telling to me that the only people in delete are those who don't even edit football related articles, I'm not surprised though. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Uganda/South Africa example is exactly how it's supposed to work, though. We can't write articles on people who haven't been significantly independently covered, especially BLPs, which is the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So get rid of them and keep it to just GNG, that is my point. Why should ColeTrain4EVER (talk · contribs) above have to consistently debate why the National Independent Soccer Association is fully-professional if that basically doesn't matter at all? If you want to make it that strict, go nuclear. Set strong standards and go with it. There is no point in debating why a professor is notable or a politician or even an athlete if there is just one actual way to be notable... no leeway, no assumptions, just needs to be basically perfect from creation. Personally find it to be a great way to dissuade users and has a very hard bias against non-Western athletes and women's sports but whatever, I doubt you guys even care. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every sports biography does ultimately have to meet GNG, though - that's pretty clear from both WP:NSPORT and the 2017 RfC. What WP:NFOOTY does is guides us to which leagues should have had all of their players significantly covered by virtue of them being professional, meaning we can assume players are notable - but if an article's under-sourced and I look up sources and can't find any, it doesn't matter if you've played 50 games in the Premiership, we can't keep the article (though playing 50 games in the Premiership is basically as close to automatic notability as exists, that's because you'll have been significantly covered.) In short, WP:NFOOTY should always predict whether GNG is met, though it sometimes doesn't. The SNG can't save the article if we can't write an article based on reliable, independent, secondary coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 23:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So then, why have it? Just guide everyone that a footballer/coach needs to meet WP:GNG and be done with it. If that is how strict you want it to be, this guy and this guy are basically out for the count. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harriel would be at worst draftified, he did receive some coverage on his signing but the Union II didn't seem to be covered that significantly. Dennis Waidner has many sources available on the German page, many of them are from FC Bayern's website but I punched his name into tz.de and brought up a good amount of coverage as well, not all SIGCOV, but enough to piece together an article. This article has none of that. SportingFlyer T·C 00:08, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should guide everyone toward finding GNG coverage for every article created, that's the ultimate goal of WP:N and WP:NSPORT. The GNG-based SNGs (like NSPORT) are just there to give an editor a) an idea of who is likely to be notable, so they don't waste their time trying to write about someone who isn't; and b) make it less of a burden on NPP/AfD/etc. by providing a reliable indicator that SIGCOV in multiple IRS is very likely to exist, so no need to pay too much attention to a stub sourced only to a database if they meet the SNG. But if someone actually tries to expand the article and discovers there isn't SIGCOV, the presumption of notability is nullified and the page goes to AfD. And when this happens regularly, as it clearly does in several sports, articles with similar SNG metrics start to get scrutinized more frequently. If NPROF didn't supersede GNG, many us here would be arguing just as strongly to root out all the non-notable academics -- in fact, the majority of my AfD !votes have been doing exactly that within the bounds of NPROF criteria. So please don't assume this is all a pointed attack on a specific sport or sports in general. JoelleJay (talk) 03:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Hey, I've only been here a few minutes! What's going on?"

In all honesty yeah it's a bit trying when there are two separate thresholds like this let alone the fact that USL does not get a lot of coverage, on average. There's been multiple attempts to discuss this on WP:FPL, including one right now about USL1 that (shocker) no one is commenting on, and it sometimes feels like we're trying to make a broad definition but instead its turning more case by case. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As a quick fix to the SNG, we could add that NFOOTY does not apply to reserve teams as they seem to get far less coverage. Thoughts? Microwave Anarchist (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably oppose to that. Technically, Loudoun United isn't a "reserve side" like say FC Barcelona B but are actually a separate entity and "affiliate" of D.C. United. They still have to sign players to full-time contracts and are limited in academy players that can be used. They also have to follow the same standards as other USL Championship clubs. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 11:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loudoun United is an MLS-"owned" side, not an MLS-"affiliated" side. This means that DC United has full control over them. "Affiliated" sides include Las Vegas Lights FC, which is affiliated with the LA Galaxy but is independently owned and controlled. There are also fully independent USL teams like New Mexico United with no affiliation with an MLS team. Whether there should be a difference between "Owned" and truly independent sides in terms of notability is debatable, but the "affiliated" sides are generally as well covered as the truly independent ones and I would be opposed to limiting notability on them. However, as noted Loudoun United is not "affiliated" but "owned" by an MLS team. Smartyllama (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whether the purpose of the SNG is indeed to render it permanently notable or simply, as JoelleJay said to "protect them from being immediately targeted for deletion", it is clear that it was inappropriate to target this for deletion mere hours after the article was created. Smartyllama (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smartyllama, the protection is for articles on subjects who do have SIGCOV that just isn't in the article yet; this one has been verified as entirely failing GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The long-standing consensus here has been to wait to create articles for new players until they have their first professional debut (and meeting the SNG), which is what Aboukoura did last weekend, during his new team's first match of the season. Immediately asking such an article for deletion complete disregards the long-established consensus here, and is going to create havoc if we have to have a debate everytime a young player makes a first-team debut. No prejudice against revisiting this in half-a-decade or so, if they are never heard from again. Nfitz (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should definitely not have a poorly-sourced BLP of a child sitting around in mainspace, especially not for the whole 1.5 more years he'll be a minor, on the off chance he gets significant media attention at some point. There is ZERO reason not to draftify and wait until he meets GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is the fact that the subject is a minor relevant? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It has no bearing, given they are a fully-professional soccer player, who has played on a fully-professional team. The prejudice here is stunning! Nfitz (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BLP rules make no difference between professional soccer players and others. Also, while "fully professional" is used as a bright line standard in WP:NFOOTY, it seems to be far less of a predictor in terms of passing or failing WP:GNG notability. —Kusma (t·c) 06:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus across Wikipedia is to wait until a subject receives significant coverage in reliable sources. It creates havoc when articles are created based solely on some arbitrary measure like stepping onto a pitch, rather than assessing whether the wider world has actually reported on the subject to deem them notable. Most of the time, stepping onto a pitch means they will have received coverage in reliable sources. But if they haven't - reliable sources haven't significantly reported on them because the sources don't yet deem this subject notable - we shouldn't deem them notable either. Why should Wikipedia consider this individual notable when the wider world of reliable sources has not? -M.Nelson (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Glad to see some myths about WP:NFOOTBALL being exploded in this discussion. Others are correct that "fully professionalism" is an arbitrary invention which (insofar as it exists at all) has no relationship whatsoever to notability. The idea that non-notable young players from certain preferred leagues be "given leeway" is also palpable nonsense. Ultimately WP:GNG has to be the standard applied and this guy, like thousands of other sub-stubs predicated on stat listings, is still miles away from it. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2021 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absorbent Ink

Absorbent Ink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I found no notability per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Zero hits on Google News. Google searches only turns up press releases from the company or company information, nothing that can establish notability. SunDawn (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SunDawn (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 08:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The claims in the article (fastest-growing, best places to work) would, even if cited, fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. No evidence of notability found, and the acquiring company has no page which can serve for a redirect. AllyD (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2021 (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.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akash K Aggarwal

Akash K Aggarwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

DEPRODed w/o explanation, no sufficient significant, independent coverage, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per nomination, no significant coverage defcon5 (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: More contents (not trivial mentions) with reliable sources have been added now. Please go through the references in the article. Over the past decade, India has made unprecedented progress toward LGBT equality and LGBT activist Akash K Aggarwal has made immense contribution (most notably activism against Section 377). He is also a leading accessory designer in bollywood industry (see the article for more) . I think he meets WP:GNG and we should keep this article. Nalbarian (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Sources added by Nalbarian are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. 130.245.192.7 (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The coverage seems to be mostly about the celebrities who wore what he designed while appearing in fashion shows, not him or his career. The guy is successful, but I'm not seeing much about him specifically. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2021 (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Keely

Alan Keely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL JMHamo (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Hasn't played in Ireland's premier division and is thus not a pass of WP:NFOOTY. nearlyevil665 20:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment wouldn't extensive coverage on a subject's death be considered non-trivial? Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep fails NFOOTY, but passes GNG, lots of significant and reliable coverage such as this, this, this, and this.--Ortizesp (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:BASIC is largely met. While it's not cut-and-dried and though much of the (more recent) coverage of the subject relates to his death, there does appear to be coverage in enough multiple independent sources to demonstrate some notability. It's not black and white, but (in a grey-ish case like this) I would lean more towards a "keep". Guliolopez (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The article fails NFooty, however I also feel it does qualify under GNG, I agree with Guliolopez comments above. Govvy (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. I couldn't find any significant coverage of Keely before his death so he fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - coverage was a bit borderline until his death, but the extensive coverage of his death puts it over the top for GNG. Seems a bit odd to me that this article has been here harmlessly for a decade, but then gets nominated for deletion on the very day he dies. Nfitz (talk) 22:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment People have extensive coverage of their deaths but they still aren't notable for a Wikipedia article. It's why there are "Death of X" articles rather than articles called X. AfD's shouldn't be decided on whether someone's death receives coverage or not. Dougal18 (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2021 (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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Always Evergreen

Always Evergreen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

As discussed at the talk page for this article, it seems the sources used in this article are more about Willow Osborne than the group itself. They do have a somewhat significant following on social media, but that isn't what determines notability. I can't find any reliable sources that reference the duo itself, and the majority of the sources in the article are user-generated, including YouTube, Facebook, and LinkedIn, and as such don't count when determining notability

As an admin mentioned in response on the talk page, notability doesn't automatically extend to the band, and as such, an article about Osborne with a smaller section about the band is probably a much better option. The issue isn't Osborne's lack of notability, it's the lack of notability for the band itself. Bsoyka🗣️ 01:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bsoyka🗣️ 01:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 08:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I agree with the nominator. There could possibly be a short article on Willow Osborne, who got some media notice back when she was a tween prodigy. But this article is about the group and there is almost nothing to say about them beyond the fact that they got a few gigs so far. Also they have existed for less than a year. That's why the article needs to fill space with one member's life story and a few non-notable snippets about the other member's academic record. The talk page discussion referenced by the nominator is especially fascinating, as we watch the article creator trying to tackle these concerns and coming up empty. Always Evergreen is simply ineligible for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:46, 22 May 2021 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Johnston (actress)

Amy Johnston (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. The Hollywood Reporter obit notwithstanding, there's just not much in the way of coverage, and her credits aren't substantial enough. Not to be confused with the younger actress/stuntperson. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meeting GNG, multiple independent secondary sources writing about the subject. Including main media like MSN. SportsOlympic (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly passes the WP:GNG and most likely also WP:NACTOR #1. gidonb (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She did get entry on imdb, enough to be called Amy Johnston (I), with the younger actress/stuntperson being called Amy Johnston (II), who is in disambiguation page here on Wikipedia but not currently in her own article. Why nominate Amy Johnston (I) for deletion here on Wikipedia just after it's received some expansion here?

• Comment IMDb is not a reliable source. Her being in there in no way adds to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have multiple sources mentioning here death. That is enough alone to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 3 May 2021 (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 delete based upon strength of arguments. The arguments are "meets GNG" and "Doesn't meet GNG". The "Doesn't meet GNG" side presents an analysis of the sources, while the "meets GNG" does not describe how the sources are in-depth, reliable, and independent. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Sosa

Angelo Sosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

appeared in Top Chef several times, but never won. I don't think that qalifies for an article; generally we have only the winners. I am listing the other non-winners who have articles but show no obvious notability; I'm listing them separately, because checking might show that some of them might have notability otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: a notable chef who has appeared in top chef contests with significant coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Kaspadoo (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR, the book mentions are PR, passing mentions and a recipe. Not good enough. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2021 (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. Going with the "not clean up" crew. Please consider cleaning it up and if you feel it does not qualify for inclusion for other reasons, feel free to nominate again. Missvain (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arab states of the Persian Gulf

Arab states of the Persian Gulf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is a complex issue. This article was created in 5 November 2005 by @Jungli under the title 'Arab states of the Persian Gulf'. Its introduction stated that: 'The Arab Gulf states are a group of six Arab countries that border the Persian Gulf. These countries are Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. These six countries form the members of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf'. The article remained relatively unchanged (with the exemption of an WP:WAR) until in August 2013 when user @Insomniaingest included Iraq in the article introduction in a series of consecutive edits while also removing the unsourced claim that: 'Saudi Arabia is a hereditary monarchy with limited political representation'. The 2013 edit hasn't been discussed in-depth until recently in the talk page. The problem is that simply removing Iraq from the article subject would create a WP:CFORK since there already exist two related articles that primarily discuss the six Arab Gulf States: Gulf Cooperation Council and Member states of the GCC. And a single socio-geographical article that discuss the Persian Gulf region Arab states: Eastern Arabia (that also include Southern Iraq). Currently the Arab states of the Persian Gulf article is mainly focused around the GCC nation states. Should the article be up-merged or deleted? — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 20:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 20:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 20:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The main issue with the current state of the article is that its descriptive title subject is not notable (WP:N). There are few sources that group those countries together and this was discussed in the talk page. Moreover, it leads to confusion since its content currently specifically talk about the GCC countries which excludes Iraq in contradiction of the subject grouping (example: The six Arab states...). In fact, Iraq is only mentioned in the introduction to point out that it's not a member of the GCC. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 20:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I fail to see how this is a notable grouping, it's largely WP:SYNTH about a particular set of countries and failing to show what ties them and just them together. It's those that border the Persian Gulf excluding Iran, or Arabian Peninsula excluding Yemen plus Iraq, or Gulf Cooperation Council plus Iraq. But several of the generalizations about these seven countries' Politics, Economy, Peace, or Freedoms (a) can be easily extended to other Arab or Middle Eastern countries like Yemen or Iran and (b) are not generalizable to all of them. I don't see the purpose of this when we have articles on entities more widely grouped and covered. Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking my vote in response to User:Goldsztajn's comment. I would note that several of these sources are moreso about the GCC countries or another particular grouping, but with the related articles being more about the political entity of the Council or a geographic entity, they aren't necessarily the best places for a merger. But this article still needs a lot of work to address synthesis and generalizations, without being overly specific either so further discussion here is helpful. Reywas92^Talk 19:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:I understand yours and User:Goldsztajn concern, but honestly I'm not sure how keeping the broad subject at its current form can ever help the article break out from its current state. If the article has a potential then sure, I would even be glad to help edit it as long as there's a consensus on which content to use that isn't a simple synthesis of a group of countries. I think currently this discussion would go no where, so we should make the task more straightforward to further this discussion: If there are a number of verifiable sources that merit the current article descriptive title then we should keep it, else I think it’s self evident that the article notability is problematic, that is, if such sources and relevant content are hard to get by.

Pointing out the fact that the article title is a common term (as Goldsztajn noted) doesn’t detract from the fact that this term is used in a multitude of different defintions in diffrent contexts that has failed to muster a general subject (as Reywas92 recognized on the term being used in different subjects, moreso about the GCC). Which is an important point we shouldn’t ignore. As for the keep and cleanup argument, I apologize but I don’t see it as a good argument, in fact I think it’s an argument for deletion since after all the current state of the article is self evident on its inherent issues. Also relevant User:Stifle essay on keep-and-clean. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 01:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We could have various articles about random geographical groupings such as ‘Arab states of North Africa’, ‘Arab states of the Red Sea’, ‘Arab states of the Indian Ocean’ but all they would contain would be a summary of material covered in the individual country articles unless there was sustained coverage of the topic in RIS to give us specific content. Mccapra (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, this is unsurprisingly messy. At present count there are 975 (and 316 indirect) links to this page. Note that Persian Gulf States, Arab gulf states, States of the Persian Gulf, Arab Gulf States... plus another 31 all redirect to this page. Persian Gulf States is a term of continuing and historic usage: "The Persian Gulf States include the British protected states of Bahrain, Qatar and the Trucial States."^[1] US State Department record of conversation with the UK on the "Persian Gulf States", March 1969.^[2] Library of Congress country study series (which equates to GCC.)^[3] Other examples.^[4][5][6] Arab Gulf States is a term which has grown in usage since the 1980s (some examples^{[7][8][9][10][11][12]}) and is presently the predominant term when compared to Persian Gulf States. I suspect that the difference is between British and US English usage: Persian Gulf States originates with the rise of British imperialism in West Asia and declines from the 1970s following the British withdrawal to the east of the Suez.

While there is clear consensus for deleting geographically synthetic articles (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles (3rd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horn Africans in the United Kingdom, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horn Africans in Scandinavia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horn Africans in the United States) I do not believe this is such a case here. Moreover, the talk page histories of many of the pages show discussions over time regarding naming. Two discussions regarding the title of the page in 2007 and 2010, seem to have reached a consensus regarding the present title. Editors seem to have previously concluded that this was the simplest way to deal with a conflicting and complex set of usages. I cannot see how anything has changed, nor do I understand why this has been brought to AfD when what actually appears to be the present problem is a content dispute (should Iraq be included). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood the main issue here, simply put: It's a WP:N problem with the current WP:NDESC subject of the article. We can't simply remove Iraq from the subject since it would lead to WP:CFORK in GCC and Eastern Arabia articles. The sources you posted predominately refers to the Gulf monarchies that are referenced in both the GCC and Eastern Arabia. And as the commenters above stated: it's essentially a WP:SYNTH on a set of countries that don't have anything that groups them together (in the WP:NDESC title context, per the 2013 addition), the GCC article is suitable enough for the geopolitical grouping among the Arab monarchies that is also supported by the sources you have posted. Moreover, we have discussed the exclusion of Iraq in the article talk page and editors have raised a reasonable concern that simply editing the article to remove Iraq would lead to WP:CFORK.. Currently Iraq is only mentioned in the article introduction to state that it's not part of the GCC, the poorly written body of the article only refers to the aforementioned monarchies in a summary form of their economy, politics...etc. So the issue stands whether the article is notable or not, and what to do with its content since the NDESC title lacks a well defined subject. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 01:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As nominator, you cannot !vote (the nomination is your !vote). It's not a matter of (mis)understanding, I simply don't agree with you. Reading the history of the talk pages it's pretty clear there have long been discussions on the issue of article naming. The sources I cited include references to multiple contemporary and historic usages of the term which incorporate a mixture of countries not simply synonymous with the GCC; which is the whole point - there is no *absolutely* correct definition here, but rather a need to note that there are historic and contemporary usages of the term(s) which can convey different meanings. "Persian Gulf States" and "Arab Gulf States" are clearly notable, and to deal with the complexity of those concepts, to date, the community has chosen to use the title of this article. I'm not particularly wedded to this title, but I can accept the logic of why this title was chosen as a result of the earlier discussions; if you think this is an inappropriate title or there is inappropriate content then use the processes at hand to deal with that; but which are not AfD. I still see no reason to see this other than a content dispute. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Yes the community chose this WP:NDESC title because the article suffered (and continued to) from WP:WARRING. The problem is that with the current descriptive title which also by extension includes Iraq (Per the 2013 edit) warrants a discussion on the article notability. I've tried to 'fix' the article by contributing to it and didn't arrive at the conclusion that the current state warrants a WP:AfD process until I've discussed the issue in the talk page. The problem is not simply a matter of a content dispute because as I have stated above: You can't simply undo the 2013 edit, it would cause other issues in redundancy and WP:CFORKING. My question to you is the following: Can you fix the article by finding relevant resources that groups the GCC + Iraq in a notable subject and produce relevant content that is not simply just a WP:Synth of countries summaries? Currently the article is an empty shell with no insightful notable content since the article inception in 2005, with the exception of the frequent edit wars and article locking for the renaming dispute, simply put there's a reason why the article failed to address any notable content for the last 16 years. I sincerely believe that the ongoing vandalism is a symptom not a cause for the current state of the article, it's time its notability be discussed throughly here. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 05:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I’ve been thinking about Goldsztajn’s points for a few days. I see what they are getting at and, per their comment, it is messy. There are sources to support multiple, overlapping and historically varying descriptions of most of the states in the region. So much so indeed that I have a (only very slight) temptation to create an article about that very topic. But ultimately I still agree with Contemporary Nomad. We have articles about the individual countries and one article that discusses virtually the entire group, so this comes down to an issue of content management for the encyclopaedia: how do we present information in ways which are clear and avoid multiple forks, where those forks don’t really serve any real purpose. Mccapra (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and restructure: Are we seriously going to remove an article for a commonly spoken about? Yes the article is messy, and I think we should rewrite parts of it and remove overlapping statements. Ridax2020 (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Are we seriously going to remove an article for a commonly spoken about What does 'commonly spoken about' mean? If you meant the title, as we indicated in this discussion the term 'Arab states of the Persian Gulf' refers to many different subjects: British Empire colonies/protectorates in the Persian Gulf in the early 20th century or GCC countries or Eastern Arabia. You can check @Goldsztajn thread with the relevant sources. Yes the article is messy, and I think we should rewrite parts of it and remove overlapping statements. keep-and-clean is not a strong argument against deletion. However you're free to try and clean the article with relevant content and it might help us in this process as long as it's not merely a synth of a group of countries summaries whose grouping is based on facing a particular body of water. — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 18:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ample evidence this is a notable grouping of countries. AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Potential renaming or article restructuring should be dealt with at the article talk page, not AfD. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:01, 11 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ash Lieb

Ash Lieb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

GNG fail. After looking at the sources, I am fairly convinced that the book sources are self-published or actually authored by Lieb under pseudonym. I do not trust any of them, reliability-wise. That leaves numerous articles in the local paper, The Courier, many of which are trivial mentions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, all coverage I can find is in the local paper. He may be a noteworthy artist in his city, but I don't see him discussed anywhere else. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the sources are either suspect per Possibly's research, or trivial.Theredproject (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, many of the books are definitely not self published. At least three are from New Zealand^[1][2][3], another three are from Canada^[4][5][6], and several are from within Australia, including one published by a researcher at the university of Hobart.^[7] There may also be others listed at world cat.^[8]— Preceding unsigned comment added by El937 (talk • contribs)

It appears that all of your edits have been related to Ash Lieb, so I have to take those sources with a grain of salt. Unfortunately I can't actually review any of them to check on the coverage but "Surreal pop: the art of Ash Lieb" only returns google 7 results. I have no way of determining the quality of these sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Canadian ones, being Canadian myself. Luminary books is registered in Canada but has no web presence at all. Cherry Street books has no web presence. Reverie has a web site but I am not sure if it is the same company. http://reveriepress.com/ is a self-publishing company. --- Possibly (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's pretty much what I expected, so I'm still solidly at 2Delete2Furious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I looked up some of these books. Goodreads has an author page for "James Willow Jr." who has written three Lieb books. The most promising one "The art and times of Ash Lieb", University of Tasmania" doesn't show up in web searches. The ISBN does not exist when I search library or ISBN indexes. in fact, none of the ISBNs listed above are accurate. It's a fraud show. --- Possibly (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out the ISBNs do work, so striking that bit. the books are still highly dubious though. --- Possibly (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even better. Can I vote double secret delete? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. I think you can add "with impunity". By the way, you need to strike the second accidental d*l*te !vote! I usually just put stars in some of the letters when I need to do that. --- Possibly (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will that change fix it? Is that to keep the AFDstats bot happy? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's fine. Thanks. It's more to prevent mistakes in manual counting.--- Possibly (talk) 17:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Persuaded by Possibly's solid source analysis, I reckon this is a well-disguised self-promo piece that needs to go. (And as SFR points out, the lone opinion to the contrary is from a largely-SPA with likely COI issues.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm calling WP:HOAX Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:54, 3 May 2021 (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) 13:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ashraf Din

Ashraf Din (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable umpire, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Umpired in 4 ODI's. StickyWicket (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source please. Störm (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really, because he's not listed anywhere on the Cricinfo list of officials by number of ODIs. He did however officiate 2 Women's T20Is in 2011, [7]. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is an international umpire as StickyWicket states, there's also some coverage of him in reports from umpiring in Europe. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails NBIO. Being international umpire is not enough. "Just a job" with no visibility/significance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not just anyone can turn up and officiate international cricket, it's a specialised role - so certainly not "just a job". StickyWicket (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments of StickyWicket and Rugbyfan22. — A.A Prinon  ^Conversation 10:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete according to his Cricinfo profile, he's
• Delete. My mistake. He was a reserve umpire, so changing to delete as his one LA match isn't sufficient. StickyWicket (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks StickyWicket. Störm (talk) 04:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete had a good look, can't find any significant sources about him. He was reserve umpire in 2010 Cricket Europe competitions, and cannot see anything significant about the 2 W20Is that he umpired in 2011. Fails WP:GNG therefore. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:55, 10 May 2021 (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. Going with draftify as WP:Alternative to deletion. If it gets deleted in six months, c'est la vie. You can find this at Draft:Asian Journal of Distance Education. Missvain (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Journal of Distance Education

Asian Journal of Distance Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article PRODed with reason "Non-notable journal, indexing nowhere selective, fails WP:NJOURNALS". DePRODed with reason "Removed PD/D tag so we can improve article to meet standards". However, WP:BEFORE suggests that neither NJournals nor WP:GNG are met. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the original PRODer Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. I understand the notability situation, so I won't call for keeping it as it is. But AJDE is neither sub-par nor predatory, it serves the Open Educational Resources movement within low income Asian countries in a way other journals don't, and its principals have close connections with the Commonwealth of Learning. In fact, I can see that you all who are calling for deletion have expertise in this area, so if you can, I'd ask for advice on which indexes are sufficiently selective to reach out to, so that once that's in place we can move it back to the main namespace. --Steve Foerster (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"AJDE is neither sub-par nor predatory" that's not the point. The point is that it grossly fails WP:GNG. As for selective databases, that's typically Journal Citation Reports (i.e. has an impact factor) or Scopus (i.e. has a CiteScore). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, I realise that's not the main point, but that was one of Randykitty's stated motivations for focusing on this sort of thing, so I thought there was no harm in making that clear, especially since I'm asking for the article to be draftified rather than deleted. And many thanks, btw, I'll relay your advice to the editors! :-) --Steve Foerster (talk) 18:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Drafitfy per SteveFoerster. Not a small number of papers published there (and reasonably well cited for a low-citation field in a low-citation part of the world geographically), see here. I'll not that I removed the external link to the website because it didn't work, but papers are still being published in that journal on Google Scholar in 2021, so it's not easy to say it's not notable. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:13, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Even the lowest quality predatory journal will have papers "still being published in that journal on Google Scholar", so I find it difficult to see how this makes a journal notable (and I'm not claiming that this journal is a "lowest quality predatory journal"). Draftify would be fine if we could expect this journal to become notable in the next 6 months, but I don't see any indication that this might be the case. BTW, the journal moved to a different URL (.com instead of .org), I have corrected this in the article. Their "indexing page" proudly lists "Citefactor", a fake predatory "index", which does nothing to increase my confidence that this journal will become notable anytime soon. --Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2021 (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.  JGHowes  ^talk 22:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assorted Motion Pictures

Assorted Motion Pictures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I first thought about moving this into draftspace. But I could not find even any single sources other than some linkedin profiles and some directory like websites. No reliable sources exist at present giving enough sigcov thus failing GNG Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC) striking as the nominator has been blocked as a confirmed sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 16:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited only mention the company in passing: accordingly, it fails WP:SIRS. JBchrch (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kashmorwiki first of all I would like to say there are a lot of coverage where assorted have already mentioned there. And Assorted Motion Pictures have already produced some movies. And in there on movies coverage you can see Assorted Motion Pictures are mentioned. So I think article should stay.

Hey JBchrch yes you are absolutely correct the sources cited only mention the company. But in wikipedia i saw a lot of article which have same issue. They only have mentioned on the sources they have provided. If you want then you can check( Surinder Films, Acropolis Entertainment, Magic Moments Motion Pictures, 4 Lions Films, DJ's a Creative Unit, Sphere Origins). Now my question is, if these article(which I mentioned) are eligible to stay on the article space. Then why my created article won't be. I had read all the rules. And when I saw these article then only i start created Assorted Motion Pictures So if these article is eligible to pass every rules then I think Assorted Motion Pictures is also eligible to stay on wikipedia. DasSoumik (talk)

Hi DasSoumik, I understand thAT it's frustrating to see your article be the subject of a deletion discussion while other sub-par articles remain on the website. However, in my view, these articles aren't eligible as well, and for the exact same reasons. Please note, additionally, that no one made the determination that they were actually eligible: it's just that no one has noticed yet that they weren't eligible. In any case, have you looked whether you could find coverage of Assorted Motion Pictures that would match the criterias of WP:SIRS? JBchrch (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JBchrch, it is not frustrating. I just told you the matter. If those articles are eligible then Assorted Motion Pictures is also eligible. That's what I think.

DasSoumik per my answer, if what you say is true, I would not consider these articles to be eligible. JBchrch (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I missed the ping somehow! Hello DasSoumik, from my experience at several AFD's, there is no point in arguing as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Like JBchrch said, some articles remain here unnoticed for several years, while some get noticed within weeks. It might be because we have improved set of toolsets and bots to patrol new pages now. If you want the similiar articles like this to get removed from here, you may nominate those for AFD. Nobody is going to object you for that move. Unless you or anyone comes up with any sources giving this company some significant coverage, my stand remains the same. Good luck. Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 00:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment hello Kashmorwiki, thank you for your reply. Now wait for other editor to come and comment here.
• Delete - simply not enough in-depth coverage to pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this production has produced many movies and recently their produced movie Rickshawala is nominated for Dadasaheb Phalke Award. And I got an article so I have added. I don't know it's enough or not, as I don't know much more about rules. But as per my knowledge 1 article is enough for article of production house. Thanks TryingToDo (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the relevant policy here is WP:ORGCRITE. JBchrch (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has short but well written with reliable sources, passes Wiki guidelines to retain Applus2021 (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Applus2021, it is not sufficient for an article to have reliable source. WP:ORGCRITE calls for significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth. JBchrch (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBchrch hello, as you can see Assorted Motion Picture's movie Rickshawala is nominated for Dada shaheb Phalke Award. And you know Dada Shaheb Phalke Award is so much prestigious award. So when a film is nominated for such kind of prestigious award then how can it not be reliable ? TryingToDo (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2021 (UTC) comment written by DasSoumik (talk · contribs) [8][reply]

DasSoumik (talk · contribs), why did you sign as TryingToDo (talk · contribs) in the comment above? [9] JBchrch (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBchrch i do edit from phone so was trying to copy paste from my previous comment on this discussion(from here [10]). But I had copied wrong user's id that is my mistake and also my phone's problem. I was coping my sigh from previous discussion of my sign on this discussion. So didn't notice this. Thank you. DasSoumik (talk)

DasSoumik, gotcha. Be careful when doing that. Regarding your argument: you are arguing for a form of WP:INHERITED notability, which is not sufficient. Again, WP:ORGCRITE applies here. JBchrch (talk) 13:57, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JBchrch thank you for pointing out my mistake regarding signature which I didn't notice. Next time surely I'll be careful about my signature. DasSoumik (talk)

• Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Kolma8 (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2021 (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 06:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ata Abdullayev

Ata Abdullayev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I do not see why the person is notable. Certainly not as a football players, he fails WP:NSPORTS, and the rest of the article is incomprehensible POV (is he really notable for telling THE TRUTH to the Armenian prime minister? What the fuck?) Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. nearlyevil665 20:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article looks like it is poorly translated from the Azerbaijan Wikipedia. The truth seems to be a reference to that he confronted the Armenian prime minister because of the alleged genocide of Azerbaijanis by Armenians [11]. Out of curiosity, since this is an imprisoned politician and a video blogger from a non-english speaking country, was a WP:BEFORE conducted in his native media before the Afd? Alvaldi (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The Azerbaijani Wikipedia article is currently nominated for deletion.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He is famous in Azerbaijan but not for his encyclopedic activity or something like that. --NMW03 (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2021 (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. There's not much discussion, but ultimately the "delete" arguments are stronger: their point that there are not adequate reliable sources for this topic has remained unrebutted. Moving the page to the title John Barefoot, as has been suggested, wouldn't solve the sourcing problem, or would even aggravate it because the article would then be a WP:BLP. Sandstein 08:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barefoot Catalogue

Barefoot Catalogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I get 97 Google hits for this (quoted), none of them RS. Sources establish existence, but not significance. Guy (help! - typo?) 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Barefoot is the most well known publisher of revenue stamp catalogues, probably not easily known to non-philatelists. You are unlikely to find online sources but his work is well listed and mentioned by several philatelic organisations or publications, such as the Royal Philatelic Society London [12]. ww2censor (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ww2censor, being listed as a catalogue in a database is not actually a source. We need sources about the subject. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I stated you will likely not find online sources the speak about this catalogue other than historic listings. The Linns Stamp News, a well respected independent philately news source, already quoted in the article is most likely one of the best you will find for now. With access to hard copy philatelic magazines, which are hard to get without visiting a philatelic library, I am sure we could do better. 14:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)ww2censor (talk)
• Comment: I had created this article back in 2013. As ww2censor (talk · contribs) has said, Barefoot is one of the leading revenue stamp catalogue publishers at the moment. The catalogues seem to be edited and published by one person so I wouldn't mind moving the article to John Barefoot and restructuring it accordingly (something along the lines of other articles about philatelic publishers, eg. Alfred Forbin or Douglas Myall). Of course, the main problem is that revenue stamps are a relatively obscure field even within philately, so finding adequate sources is difficult.

@JzG: Could you please give an idea what you would consider to be reliable sources for Wikipedia articles on stamp catalogues? I see that even articles on major postage stamp catalogues (eg. Stanley Gibbons catalogue, Scott catalogue, Michel catalog, Yvert et Tellier) generally lack reliable sources. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources that are about the subject rather than just listing editions of the catalogue or mentioning that a stamp is in the catalogue. I'm also happy with a redirect to John barefoot, which seems to resolve the issue. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:47, 9 May 2021 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhimsen (1950 film)

Bhimsen (1950 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

An article about a Bollywood film, created in April 2016. There are two citations. #1 is about a different film altogether (Zimbo Comes To Town). #2 is a listings site. The EL is non-WP:RS IMDb. A WP:BEFORE search in both English and Hindi (भीमसेन) failed even to disclose the plot. The actual title seems to be Veer Bhimsen, not that that affects matters. References #1 and #2 were added by the article creator later in April 2016; who also took that opportunity to delete a WP:PROD tag.

For only the second time (perhaps showing my naiveté), I found parallel articles in a couple of dozen languages at vvikipedla.com (check the spelling). I venture to suggest that that site is not RS.

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Narky Blert (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see how it should have a stand alone article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM.Kolma8 (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2021 (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 Big Brother Albania. Missvain (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother VIP Albania

Big Brother VIP Albania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

It's been more than 3 years now since its first and the only teaser aired, then, nothing officially confirmed by the production or the TV channel the show will definite happening. It is just simply WP:TOOSOON to create a standalone article. —— A675974811 (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:06, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Big Brother Albania. There are sources, so merge into a new subsection under the existing Spin-off shows section saying that a spinoff was planned. But ultimately it's just routine coverage of a planned show which hasn't taken place yet. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 14:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per el cid. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This does not warrant a standalone article, and will fits well with Big Brother Albania. SunDawn (talk) 07:38, 12 May 2021 (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. czar 05:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brake test

Brake test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Don't think there is enough sources or information to prove notability here, borderline Speedy but it's been around since 2006 so worth a 2nd opinion. James of UR (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. James of UR (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Searching for sources is difficult because there's a lot of false positives regarding vehicle maintenance. The sources definitely do exist however. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 08:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's a makety-uppity. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's an important article nevertheless, it just needs to be improved upon/given some sources DrawWikiped^(talk) 19:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As noted, searching for sources turns up a lot of false positives. That being said, searching for "brake checking" (with quotation marks) makes it somewhat easier to find relevant sources, and adding keywords such as dangerous, illegal, or accident also helps quite a bit. I found the research article Defense Against the Dark Cars: Design Principles for Griefing of Autonomous Vehicles which goes into some detail about how autonomous vehicles might deal with such behaviour from other drivers, an article by ABC7 about the legality of it in California, some news articles about accidents caused by brake checking such as this one, and a whole plethora of lawyers (presumably, though of course anyone can claim to be a lawyer on the internet) offering legal advice about it.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] I also found a bunch of blogs and some local news sites (or at least that's what they seem to be) where I'm not sure of the source quality. The Washington State Department of Licensing includes it as an example of aggressive driving (aggressive and risky driving, such as: [...] Braking to get others to back off your bumper.). I think it's safe to say that the concept is notable. That being said, I think the WP:COMMONNAME is "brake checking" and would suggest a WP:RM if this article is kept. TompaDompa (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is a very common but Rename either "Brake check" or "Brake checking" as per WP:COMMONNAME. A "Brake test" sounds like some type of diagnostic procedure.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Rusf10, keep and rename to "Brake check" per WP:COMMONNAME. Article is clearly notable, even with the trouble finding sources. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this page is closer to a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia page imo (WP:NOT). Suitable for Wiktionary? DigitalHamster (talk) 06:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to 'Brake check' per everyone else's suggestions. Carwile2 ^*message* 01:55, 9 May 2021 (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) 13:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brewster Yale Beach

Brewster Yale Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The sourcing here is clearly inadequate. I did a deep sourcer search. I was able to find a brief mention of his sourcing the earliest actions of the Associated Press in archival outlook, but I would not coniser that substantive. I also was able to find basically a church bulletin mentioning him becoming education director for the Episcopalian Diocese of Delaware. I also came across a mention of him in a geneology book that listed all the descandants of someone much earlier no matter how prominent or not promient they were. The claim of his uniquely deep understanding of Jung's work does not amount to notability and is seeminly sourced to a work by Beach himself. I just do not see any actual claim to notability here. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sun8908 _Talk 14:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The main claim for notability is correcting an error in AP's founding date in 2005 (from 1848 to 1846). Beach was related to one of the founder of AP. This led AP to publish a short obit on Beach's death mentioning the relationship and error. I don't think the previous dating error of AP's founding deserves a mention on the Associated Press page. At most this would be a clarifying footnote there.--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• delete with a short mention in Associated_Press#History. --hroest 17:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article which appears to be more appropriate to a family history site. That the subject retrieved an 1872 memo written by one Moses Sperry Beach describing the role of Moses Yale Beach in establishing AP does not confer biographical notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Nor do the subject's roles in a Center for Jungian Studies and at Lithgow, New York#St. Peter's Episcopal church credibly indicate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The material in the article boils down to: he had some notable ancestors and found a small correction to a historic date among his family's papers. That's not cause for notability. The obituary also mentions founding a center for Jungian studies but it seems not to be notable (or even to exist any more). There's more detail in another obituary but that one appears to be the written-by-the-family type of obituary and still lists nothing that suggests notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2021 (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. Can be recreated or restored if sufficient reliable sources are found. Sandstein 08:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British Youth Band Association

British Youth Band Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No evidence of any significant coverage of this organization in any media. Searches turn up only social media accounts of the organization itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately most of the information relating to this organization is not available online. However, back in the 70s/80s it was a lot more high-profile (sold out events at Wembley, sponsorship by Marks&Spencer, Natwest (https://memories.royalalberthall.com/content/natwest-bank-and-british-youth-band-association-festival-youth-bands-0), broadcast on national television) so I would argue that it holds historical significance. The marching band scene in the UK is also very niche - there are thousands and thousands of people involved, but if you aren't involved in the activity then you would not know that it exists. 2A02:C7F:FAF1:300:6897:E46:D463:626F (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Offline sources are valid. The article has stood 14 years on Wikipedia without a single reliable source having been added. If sources exist, I'd love to see them added. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @WikiDan61: I have several old assorted newspaper clippings (and a listing from the BBC) - how is best to include these as sources? Many thanks! 2A02:C7F:FAF1:300:6037:4B57:5073:FB18 (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @2A02:C7F:FAF1:300:6037:4B57:5073:FB18: You can cite the newspapers (see the ((cite news)) for examples). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BBC listings should also be available online via Genome - I have found two, from May 1979 and February 1982. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete I agree with the nomination to delete, but if more current reliable sources per WP:RS are identified and added to the article, the organization may warrant further consideration. ABT021 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2021 (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. Missvain (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Voltaggio

Bryan Voltaggio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

appeared in Top Chef several times, but never won. I don't think that qalifies for an article; generally we have only the winners. I am listing the other non-winners who have articles but show no obvious notability; I'm listing them separately, because checking might show that some of them might have notability otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These Top Chef nominations are all keeps, as significant coverage can easily be found for any of them. Baltimore Magazine, for example, published a lengthy profile of Voltaggio. pburka (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see reliable sources on him, like [22], [23], [24] from a quick search. MeetsWP:GNG. Article needs work, though. LizardJr8 (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2021 (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 California Western Railroad#Route. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Burbeck, California

Burbeck, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Yet another CWR spot, presumably named after the nearby creek. Some topos seem to show a very short passing siding here though I can't verify that. Not a notable spot. Mangoe (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:12, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is only documented as a stop on the California Western Railroad that I can see, and is already so in that article. Uncle G (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's likely that both the creek and the spot are named after Charles Leighton Burbeck, who has an in-depth biography in Carpenter and Millbury's History of Mendocino and Lake Counties, California (1914). No mention of the supposed town, though. (It mentions a subdivision set out by Burbeck in Fort Bragg, but that's far from where this article says Burbeck is.) —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to California Western Railroad#Route, where it is mentioned. All I could find was a development in Fort Bragg, some last names, and Burbeck Creek. Doesn't seem to be a notable site. Hog Farm _Talk 18:25, 28 April 2021 (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 11:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebra Computers

Cerebra Computers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A poorly sourced article; fails NCORP. Although it is a WP:LISTED company, I could not find any non-trivial, in-depth coverage on it. Its market capitalization is a modest ₹591 crore (US$71 million) [25], so I don't expect any quality sources to exist. M4DU7 (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]