< October 26	October 28 >

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. Does not meet WP:ORGCRIT or WP:EVENTCRIT. The result from 2005 is of limited relevance due to significant changes in standards since then. RL0919 (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St. Petersburg Democratic Club (United States)[edit]

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

Article created in April 2004 due to WP:RECENTISM. Was nominated for deletion in 2005, and was somehow kept during our prehistoric times. Clearly not a notable organization. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saint Petersburg Democratic Club – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom.Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 02:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomimator. Initially proposed deletion via PROD, but apparently it was kept due to the previous nomination from 16 years ago. As nominator says, this is not notable. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 01:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nominator and above. Alex-h (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not inconceivable that a local branch of a party could be notable or have a stand-alone article; agree the basis of this article fails WP:EVENTCRIT, however, as an ATD suggest redirect to Florida Democratic Party, there is enough sourcing to add a sentence or two to the state level organisation. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there isn't BLP1E deletion for organizations, but I want to make an exception for this one. Not a notable organization, I'm not completely certain "St Petersburg Democratic Club" is the name and not just a description. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, albeit weakly. I'm seeing coverage of that 2004 incident from CNN, Associated Press, and the Washington Times, in addition to the USA Today and The Guardian sources present in the article. I am seeing some references to the event even in 2017, albeit from an opinion piece in Townhall, which carries low weight in terms of evaluating notability. I'm able to find a reference to the organization in a search of this 1938 book, though it isn't super duper in-depth. It also might be a different organization with the same name, though I'm unsure on that count. I feel like there might be additional sources that would get it to WP:ORGCRIT, but I can't find any outside of the context of that 2004 ad. I have no prejudice against re-creation if additional sources can be found. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:32, 4 November 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 23:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spain–Tonga relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant third party coverage. This article is primarily based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The article even admits relations are very little: "geographical remoteness and the scarcity of historical ties - presence of Spanish navigators at the end of the 18th century - explain the low level of bilateral relations between the two countries". The section on cooperation is about European Union-Tonga relations not Spain-Tonga relations. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.per nom.Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 02:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear original research. The only place where this relationship exists at all is here on Wikipedia. Exists + exists ≠ "bilateral relations". St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is basically a Wikipedian's original topic, which it pretty much admits. No evidence of any significant coverage from sources that we would consider reliable Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – all the other editors know what's going on. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 17:35, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails notability, not enough 3rd party reliable sources. Alex-h (talk) 12:24, 31 October 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 23:41, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eswatini–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lack of significant third party coverage. This article is based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Actual relations are very little: no embassies, agreements, state visits, and trade is miniscule. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-This article should be kept in my opinion because this article is related to the foreign affairs of a country and can be improved by adding important references, contants in this article.Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 02:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to say how this article meets notability guidelines. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And can you explain your contradictory contribution here? St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear original research. The only place where this relationship exists at all is here on Wikipedia. Exists + exists ≠ "bilateral relations". St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Waddles 🗩 🖉 15:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nominator. Alex-h (talk) 12:26, 31 October 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. The issue in this AfD is notability. Opinions are roughly equally divided: The "keep" side thinks that the coverage of his career as a stage magician and of the allegations of criminal conduct establish notability. The "delete" side thinks that the career coverage is too thin for notability and the crime coverage is a BLP1E matter. These are both valid approaches to the issue, and as such, we have no consensus here.

Per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, "discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus, may be closed as delete". I think that is plausible that Domag is the subject. I also think the subject is not a public figure as this term is used in US free speech law: neither being a stage magician (a routine trade) nor being an alleged sex offender make somebody particularly involved in public affairs. As such, the requirements for BLPREQUESTDELETE are met.

Which means that I need to decide whether I should exercise the discretion allowed by that policy to delete the article. I am doing so because I do not think that this article has any particular value to our readership: both stage magicians and alleged sex offenders are very common across the world (WP:MILL), which makes the subject a person of, in my view, very little interest to readers of an encyclopedia. Routine crimes and criminals are better covered by the news media, not by encyclopedias (WP:NOTNEWS). Sandstein 09:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Oliver (magician)[edit]

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

User:Domag alleges to be the subject of this article and has actively edited this page since 2008. On the article talk page he requested this article be deleted, which is likely due to WP:BLPCRIME issue which he has been unsuccessful in removing from the page. As a result of himself self-identifying, his edits have resulted in a COI/N.

@JalenFolf: attempted a CSD G6, which was objected to by @Mikehawk10: who suggested this goes to AfD.

~~The BLPCRIME material was removed because he is a non-public figure and has not yet been convicted of any crime, consistent with policy.~~ The BLPCRIME information was re-introduced into the article by an admin because it was discovered (after this AfD was proposed) that he was actually convicted of this crime. (Updated: 18:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC))

However, this situation has brought this article to attention, and it seems like it might fail WP:GNG, especially with the allegations removed. The median number of page views is only 1 per day when you exclude both when this allegation was posted and the current round of edits this month.

I am bringing this to AfD in good faith on behalf of the user and have a neutral position regarding the outcome of this discussion. I have no personal knowledge of this user, nor any prior history with this article. And felt it would be more efficient for the community to have an experienced user present more of the facts than if the subject himself brought a likely malformed and biased AfD forward. TiggerJay (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. TiggerJay (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. TiggerJay (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 02:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The nom is neutral... what does per nom mean?— Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  "Neutral per nom" doesn't have the same ring to it, unfortunately. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 03:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This individual passes WP:BASIC. There are multiple reliable sources that describe the subject in-depth. These include:
1. A 2006 Boston Globe piece covers a particular performance of his in-depth. It also states that Oliver is a regular performer on Broadway and that he had gained reviews from NBC News's Matt Lauer;
2. A nine-page cover story in the January 2014 edition of Magic Magazine that focused on his double lung transplant (brief summary available here);
3. A 2017 Boston Globe Feature Piece that describes his illness and his role in the Magic community;
4. A 2019 MassLive piece describing his arrest on charges of child sex abuse and a follow-up piece from 6 months later describing his indictment on additional charges;
5. A 2019 Newsweek piece describing his arrest on charges of child sex abuse;

I'm also seeing plenty of sources that would describe him as a high-profile individual. This 2014 Boston Globe piece describes Oliver as a very famous magician's magician. A 2015 Capital Gazette piece describes Oliver as a renowned magician. I can even find coverage of a benefit magic show made to support Oliver's double lung transfer. He seems to have been a high-profile individual while performing, at the very least, and I do not see a real reason to remove negative information in his article when it is well-sourced and presented neutrally. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The simple usage of terms like "famous" or "renowed" is little more than WP:PEACOCK "instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it." Although since those articles are behind paywalls, I cannot see if there is such subjective information. I'll leave that to you to appropriately consider. TiggerJay (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify the criteria beyond WP:BASIC includes WP:ENT or if you prefer WP:ARTIST which is essentially the same. TiggerJay (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's anywhere near a reasonable reading of the guideline. Per WP:BASIC, People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below (emphasis added). Those additional criteria include both WP:ENT and WP:ARTIST; WP:BASIC is more or less GNG but just tailored towards biographies—if you meet it, you're presumed to be a notable individual. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I would !vote keep in the absence of a request from the subject, per sources of Mikehawk10. However, I think notability is marginal enough that we can honor a request from the subject here. Local news describing someone as a high profile individual convinces me that they are high profile in their home town. Even if the home town is a city of the size of Boston, I don't think that necessarily makes them high profile in the Wikipedia sense. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I am a lonely voice, I want to expand on my argument. First, someone who makes a believable claim to be the subject requests deletion. I agree that this is directly due to wanting to minimize the sexual assault case, and I don't think this makes much difference. (I certainly do not think that punishing someone for past self promotion is a good reason to keep the article.) I do not find the policy on honoring such requests to be completely clear, but my past usage (consistent with other practice that I've seen at AfD) is that a "weak keep" might become a "weak delete". Now let me examine the sourcing. We have substantial coverage in reliable local news sources, including the Boston Globe. It appears that he is reasonably well-known in the Boston area. We have a 2019 piece in Newsweek about the sexual assaults, but as post-2013 Newsweek is not generally a reliable source, I do not count this for so much. We have a profile in Magic (American magazine), which I do take seriously. Not mentioned elsewhere: Genii (magazine) apparently talked about his health problems in its August 2011 issue; he also had a review column in Genii. I'm seeing someone with a modicum of local celebrity, and a modestly good reputation in a relatively small profession. I think this adds up to a "weak keep" verging on "keep" for me without the request from the subject. I on the other hand do not think that deleting the article weakens the encyclopedia, and with the request of the subject, that leaves me at a weak delete. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to state explicitly that we should never keep an article simply because we want to punish the article subject by recording their misdeeds for all to see; that sort of behavior would be detrimental to the project. However, I do want to push back on two parts: the notion that the article subject is someone for whom WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies; and the source analysis that fully discounts Newsweek.
Regarding the notion that he's someone for whom WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies, he'd have to be a relatively unknown, non-public figure. Based off of the sourcing, I think there's substantial reasons to believe that he doesn't quite fit that bill. We have a source that explicitly describes him as "well-known" (from 2019 Newsweek), and we also have a few sources that would cut against him being "relatively unknown". The 2006 Boston Globe piece that I listed above states that he performs regularly on Broadway and that he was regularly was a part of "Monday Night Magic". According to an archived version of his website, he was apparently performing on Monday Night Magic as recently as 2018. His archived website also has a number of reviews on it which, if the site isn't fabricating things, indicates that he's received reviews from a Brooklyn newspaper (Park Slope Courier) as well as New Mexico paper Taos News. I can't find them on newspapers.com, but I don't doubt their existence. Additionally, crawling through proquest, I have been able to find additional coverage on the article subject or his acts from sources that span from The New York Times (1 2) and I see evidence that he was covered in a July 2014 review in Magic Magazine for his "105th Annual Salute to Magic" show. That show got coverage from The New Yorker and Greek News Online. None of these additional sources, on their own, would confer notability. But, they do appear to show that the individual is well-known as a performer outside of the Boston area and has been a public figure during his magic performance days. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Newsweek: per its RSP Entry, Newsweek after 2013 is a "case-by-case" source, not a generally unreliable source. I believe that the specific Newsweek source is reliable for the purposes that it's being used for. And, it indicates that the crime receive attention from a national outlet. It doesn't appear to have the hallmarks of clickbait reporting and it appears to have substantial original reporting (the WCVB report, which is cited in the Newsweek article as a source of other information relating to the case, doesn't include the quote from the police report). This seems like the kind of Newsweek report that would be a reliable source for the facts and would contribute towards notablity.
For the reasons I've explained in my above comment and elsewhere, I believe that the individual is a notable person (per WP:BASIC), is public figure who is well-known even outside of his local Boston area, and is someone for whom an article should be kept. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly agree that there's room for good faith disagreement on this AfD, and it looks likely that I will remain in the minority. I agree that Newsweek is fine for facts on this case, but I believe it may be suspect for establishing notability (as per the Newsweek entry on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and noticing that "well-known magician is sexual abuser" is the kind of man bites dog article that is good clickbait). Some of the reviews of shows on his old website would help support notability, if they could be verified. And I did look earlier on the NYTimes, and found some passing mentions (which I think tend to help support that he was well-respected in the magician community). I'm still seeing a somewhat-more-than WP:MILL professional magician: an article would slightly contribute to the encyclopedia, but looks pretty far from essential.

Also, although it is mostly moot: I agree he's not a low-profile individual. I disagree that a moderately successful magician is a public figure, which I understand as a substantially higher bar than not low-profile. (The policy guidance and examples on public vs medium profile vs low-profile could be clearer.) As I say, mostly moot after the guilty plea. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per Mike's sources. Also clearly not a low-profile individual as we define it, since he was a career stage performer happy to court coverage in nationally-circulated media like the Boston Globe, and until now happy to try to use Wikipedia to promote himself too. WP:BLPCRIME was misapplied here and the section on the child sex abuse allegations should be restored. – Joe (talk) 06:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that according to sources at Talk:David Oliver (magician)#Nomination of David Oliver (magician) for deletion the subject has pled guilty, been convicted and is serving his sentence, so you might take his subsequent attempts to invoke WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE with a grain of salt. It's also another reason that WP:BLPCRIME does not apply. – Joe (talk) 06:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPCRIME was applied without the knowledge of him pleading guilty. A cursory check of news/google revealed no such conviction, no other editor seemed to know about it, and it wasn't until GlenoverB brought it to my attention on the article talk page after the AfD. Additionally looking at David Oliver (magician) § Refereences, aside from the allegations and non-notable illness, there was very little coverage of him as a notable magician. Therefore, the approach was that we need to "(presume) in favor of privacy"[1] & "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."[2]. Therefore, without the conviction information and questionable notability (hence this AfD), I believe this was a reasonable approach. Had a conviction been known and appropriately sourced, then I would have favored keeping it. Notwithstanding, I believe that some of this AfD discussion already supports that this nature of specific crime can result in unnecessary bias - especially because many of us feel like he might deserve public shame, that alone does not merit this article being notable - per WP:PERPETRATOR. TiggerJay (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody arguing that him being charged with child sex abuse and thusly arrested makes him notable in its own right. What makes him notable is the in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent from him. All people supporting "keep" are pointing explicitly to WP:GNG (or WP:BASIC, which is basically GNG tailored towards biographies), which goes to show that the supporters of "keep" are making WP:PAG-based arguments here for the article's inclusion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, you did some excellent research in finding those articles - I believe that they do establish that he was someone certainly of notability/significance within his own community. It would be helpful if those things were included in the article, and it would be awesome if you would do so. Given a look at the references, if you strip away the crime (again at the time of nom this was just known as an allegation) and the questionable noteworthiness of the bird injury, there is nothing that makes him look as someone besides a local area magician who sought some publicity. That was the basis of the AfD. But yes, I agree, there is clearly much more about this individuals notability than was included in the article, and it would be very helpful if someone included that so the weight of the article appropriately demonstrates his significance in the field of magic. TiggerJay (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tiggerjay: I'll work on trying to incorporate more of this information into the article. There's definitely a lot of room to expand on the career. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What Mike said, plus you should bear in mind that notable and public figure aren't synonyms: generally speaking, the latter is a lower bar than the former. I'm not faulting you for not knowing about the conviction, and whilst I disagree that he is not a public figure, I can see that taking to AfD was a reasonable step. As for "unnecessary bias", I think it's equally important to recognise that our BLP policy exists to protect the privacy of people who haven't necessarily sought publicity, and protect Wikipedia from legal consequences, not to suppress widely-reported negative information about people who have otherwise been happy to use us for promotion. – Joe (talk) 09:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joe, absolutely the benefit of this process is bringing forward information otherwise unknown or not previously discovered. With new information available, he certainly does appears far more notable than the article itself presents itself. I also agree, as mentioned in the nom, he was happy to contribute to this article, until he wasn't - which chips away at his questionable "public figure" status - which is now irrelevant (as it related to the accusation which is now a conviction). Overall I believe this is likely turning out as I predicted. TiggerJay (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. sources and overall notability is within inclusion.BabbaQ (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep While he is marginally notable, lots of marginally notable people are not in Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not any worse because of that. Removing this article will benefit the subject of the article and have negligible effect on the value of Wikipedia. If he were more notable I’d have a different opinion, but I feel that, in this case, the balance tilts to deletion. After seeing more of the posts here, and looking at the References posted above by TiggerJay, he is notable, even before the criminal allegations. The article does need improvement to include better references. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 14:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG has been met, and subject has been comfortable with the article's existence for 13 years. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. It’s an informative article. Just because something that is negative is added to the article is not a reason to delete it. --Rrmmll22 (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

after further research there is a lot of good stuff on this character/ pedophile. Article should be expanded etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. According to the sources I would say he's notable. Many sources have covered him just as a magician and many others have covered the child sexual abuse allegations. WP:BLPREQUESTDEL normally would mean deletion if he's borderline notable, but the specific allegations raise concerns. The motivations of requesting deletion seem to be pretty clearly to remove allegations of child sexual abuse. Chess (talk) (please use ((reply to|Chess)) on reply) 23:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are enough sources for notabilityJackattack1597 (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he shouldn't have been considered notable before the recent legal issues, and those issues shouldn't make him notable. This is why self-promotion for one's business interest in local newspapers and trade magazines shouldn't be enough for biographies to meet GNG. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 00:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the WP:GNGs are not right but this guy meets them and he is a bonafide pedophile! He pleaded guilty to gropeing little boys a few weeks ago and it did not make even the local news! I would assume from reading all this AFD he is not going to have luck at removing his article he made purely for promotional purposes on Wikipedia. I guess It’s in essence getting back at him for putting himself on for promotional purposes and now he can’t get himself off it to hide his hideous behavior to little kids. The article is very misleading to his criminal behavior because he has now pleaded guilty to the charges. Poor guy It’s very sad that he is very sick on top of it all! I agree though he is only known through his own publicity where he got in news articles etc. He has not had that much publicity regarding his child molestation. There are so many perverts can’t give them all air time on the news! --Rrmmll22 (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must add though, the post user:JalenFolf made on the talk page came across in a very harrasing way. But I did notice he is auistc! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrmmll22 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Rrmmll22:
      1. JalenFolf's neurology doesn't have bearing on the substance of this discussion.
      2. We don't evaluate article notability based upon the fact that a person did bad things or tried to manipulate Wikipedia; we base it off of the coverage they receive from reliable sources. I believe firmly that the sourcing discussed both in my top-level comment and in subsequent comments, taken together, show notability per WP:BASIC. Wikipedia isn't about using original research to punish evildoers, but Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia (not a soapbox!) written from a neutral point of view that is free for public use. Please keep the deletion arguments grounded within the framework of our inclusion guidelines.
    I'd kindly ask you to voluntarily strike your responses to 力, along these lines, by crossing them out with <s></s> tags. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wasn't notable before the child abuse charges, therefore still isn't now, regardless of the result of the court case. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wasn't notable before X event, therefore isn't notable now" doesn't appear to be in line with WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, which would allow people to gain notability as a result of additional coverage received. And, I don't see a good argument here that he wasn't notable before the child abuse charges, given the sources above. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources are very poor. If the abuse charge wasn't in play then this would be a simple delete. However, even if the abuse charge is notable, then that's still a BLP1E problem. Non-notable people who commit a crime don't become notable unless that crimes generates very significant coverage (and even then, quite often the article would be on the event rather than the perpetrator, i.e. "Murder of X". As far as I can see, we don't even have a RS for the verdict on this one yet, a week after it happened. Black Kite (talk) 00:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The court website (note disclaimer [3]) dates the guilty pleas to Oct 20th, which is over two weeks ago. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As noted above, sources pre-dating the sexual abuse charges do little to establish notability by normal Wikipedia standards. The lack of any WP:RS-compliant secondary reporting of a guilty plea would seem to indicate the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Examination of the sources (I tracked down and added an archived URL for one) shows that apart from the legal charge, the only coverage of his career outside magicians' magazines and organizations is the Boston Globe article on his recovery from illness. This single article in a mainstream publication is insufficient to establish notability, and one of the trade references is to his own writing; his career has not even received a large amount of press in his field. His position heading a chapter of the Society of Young Magicians does not confer notability. So rather than marginally notable, in my estimation this is a BLP1E; the accusation of criminal conduct is responsible for the vast majority of the coverage. Since as others have noted, no non-primary source has recorded the outcome of the case, the event has not given him lasting notability. Much as I appreciate the problems of covering niche professions under our notability rules, I can find no evidence that this person meets any criterion for inclusion. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as not notable. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think in this case, WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies, as the coverage is of a marginal nature, and they are mostly a private individual. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mikehawk10. Substantial Boston Globe coverage from being a magician and substantial coverage of the court case adds up to notability. — Bilorv (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP does not meet WP:BLP1E. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:09, 6 November 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 23:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents/prime ministers/chancellors by longevity (batch nomination)[edit]

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

Trivial cross-categorisations ("age at death" and "former political office holder") which are also statistical trivia and which typically fail to cite a single source, thus not meeting either of WP:V or WP:LISTN, and violating WP:OR. Just a massive collection of WP:TRIVIA (one article has a Chancellors by Zodiac sign section...) only some of which is: ages and lengths of time repeatedly given in years and days; many further calculate how many xx,xxx thousands of days someone was/is alive; five have a section for the apparently Wikipedia editor created title "oldest living leader of x" over time. The relevant parent lists are of a vastly higher quality and are all Wikipedia needs.

Follows recent precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italian presidents by longevity, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German presidents by longevity; and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heads of state of Bulgaria by longevity. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the discussions at several recent AfDs. Unencyclopaedic cross categorisations and listcruft. Mccapra (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age, and @SSSB:'s rationale there. For example, when it comes to Australia's PMs, I can easily find articles related to it, like this one and this one Canuck^{89 (What's up?)} 22:29, October 27, 2021 (UTC)

Neither the primary source you posted from the Australian Government tangentially touching that list nor the ABC article proving Australian Prime Ministers are notable, address the reasons for deletion presented, which was also a problem in the AfD you linked. Newshunter12 (talk) 22:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources talk about their age in office. This list is primarily about longevity, which isn't supported by the sources you found. pburka (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the good reasons given by Canuckian89. And the nomination's complaint that this is "trivial...trivia... WP:TRIVIA" is both mistaken and opinionated contrary to policy WP:NPOV. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the respective "List of prime ministers/presidents/chancellors of..." page or section as this is really just a listcruft WP:CONTENTFORK. Of course this information is useful (reluctant to call this a topic) so should be covered on WP but it is ridiculous to have separate pages for each bit of information related to these leaders. In most cases it would be easy to add columns or put the age in brackets of existing columns. Occam's razor! To keep these articles seems like an endless rabbit hole of salami slicing leading to List of prime ministers of X by name, List of prime ministers of X by party, List of prime ministers of X by date they took office etc etc. Would also support delete to get rid of this listcruft. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic cross-categorization. The sources given by Canuckian89 each have about four numbers worth of information about the ages of Australian prime ministers. That is an appropriate amount of information for wikipedia to have on this topic (and it can easily go in the parent page), not 400 numbers worth. Also, the information in those references is all about their ages at the time of becoming PM, not about their longevity. Danstronger (talk) 02:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Other articles of this kind have been deleted for good reason; this latest batch is no different. This is an unencyclopedic cross categorisation of the "List of X sorted by unrelated property Y" kind. We might as well have List of fattest popes or List of shortest astronauts. Oh, and just so nobody is deceived, the WP:NPOV only applies to mainspace content- not to discussions between editors on talk pages. Reyk _YO! 10:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For all the reasons given by Canuckian89 and Andrew above User talk:144.130.153.129 12:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)— 144.130.153.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (IP is evading the block of a longtime sockmaster, Drmies (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. These longevity lists are all non-encyclopedic trivia. pburka (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These lists are all completely unsourced, failing WP:NOR. Avilich (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:NOR, I linked some articles above showing Australian PM's ages, for example. And when it comes to list articles, the sources themselves can often be found on the articles of the subjects themselves. As as noted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age, simply saying things like "unencyclopedic" or "trivia" aren't good deletion arguments.Canuck^{89 (What's up?)} 22:42, October 29, 2021 (UTC)

The lists have things like longevity, age at assuming office and age at leaving office. Your sources don't cover all of those traits, and they read like a database of statistics anyway, so one may add WP:NOTSTATS here too, not to mention that the lists are still trivial cross-categorizations at heart. Avilich (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The problem with this deletion nomination is that it is largely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the rationales for deletion have failed to provide any evidence nor a strong argument on how these lists are actually unencyclopedic or violate policies/guidelines. Using this same deletion rationale, every other list article of this same nature, like List of presidents of the United States by age (and every equivalent article for all other world leaders), should also be deleted. And the whole invoking WP:NOTTRIVIA is also extremely petulant. If one is going to nominate an article for deletion because it actually goes against what Wikipedia is about or violates policies/guidelines to where deletion is the only option (issues that can not be fixed by editing), by all means, nominate for deletion, but just because one does not like something or just because something does not float ones boat, does not mean nominate it for deletion and abuse the deletion process. Virender 95 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)— Virender 95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (struck vote by yet another sock of this compulsive sockmaster. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as they all have little to no sources.2601:241:300:B610:3CB7:E279:67AC:8D10 (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet more meaningless longevity statistics; fails WP:NOTDIR Dronebogus (talk) 22:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meaningless sorting of trivial data. Making lists for the sake of it does not add encyclopedic value. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We've way too many of this trivia list articles. List of the tallest..., list of the shortest..., list of the fastest... etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Eventually we’re going to see “list of most frequently listed lists”. Dronebogus (talk) 07:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - We already have List of Liszts and the truly spectacular List of lists of lists. Reyk _YO! 09:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per recent precedents. Peter Ormond 💬 07:30, 3 November 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shom-C[edit]

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

BLP article lacking sources from October 2014 Rathfelder (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete well he has sixty followers on Twitter, bless him, so I don’t think years of free publicity in Wikipedia has done him much good. I can’t find any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 02:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Am from Zambia and this music producer/Artist isn't that known country wide and this Wikipedia article hasn't help him get noticed in the country nor his works. --Icem4k (talk) 06:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable musician —Xclusivzik (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – sixty followers is nowhere near enough to be considered notable. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 17:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the page for speedy delete. The article has no references and is wholly promotional, and, judging by the page history, was created by the man himself. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article has no references , also looks promotional. Alex-h (talk) 12:31, 31 October 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 23:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Miller[edit]

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

Just not seeing WP:SIGCOV here, she's obviously appeared in quite a few films, television shows and video games, but I am just not seeing how we can write an article on her based on the current sources. a WP:BEFORE search did not turn up anything substantial. I am aware of the current drama and this AfD is not intended to distress the BLP subject. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with the nomination, but the timing sure is a bit awkward. Perhaps it could be revisited some months from now when it couldn't be mistaken as an accidental referendum on the current drama? ApLundell (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has had significant roles on multiple notable shows. 40 episodes of Sealab 2021. Half the episodes of Frisky Dingo. She meets the subject specific guidelines for voice actors. WP:ENTERTAINER #1. Dream Focus 07:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are several possibly notable people called Kate Miller, but the subject of this article does not appear to be one of them. Having a few bit-parts in TV programmes that some people might have watched does not in itself make a person notable. IMDB has a list of her parts. I gather from WP:ANI that the subject of this article is a significant contributor to the page.^[4]-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE - specifically "I said something about my publicist contacting Google to get this Wikipedia page off my feed when people google me like casting directors and producers for potential work and finding wrong information". The article has caused the subject stress due to incorrect information and she has claimed it has harmed her career, which is the direct opposite to the principles set out in WP:BLP. No prejudice against reappropriating as a redirect to John DiMaggio#Personal life or Kate Miller-Heidke. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~She doesn't want her age mentioned, since casting people discriminate. You just erase her age and block IP addresses from editing it, and it'd be fine.~~ Dream Focus 10:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not meant to help her get work. If stuff like her age is too sensitive, then best delete the article.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - topic may technically meet WP:ENT, but I agree with Ritchie333 and Toddy1. The topic is marginally notable at best, the article seems to be a negative to the subject per BLPREQUESTDELETE, and therefore it is in the best interests of this encyclopedia to remove the topic. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's really unfortunate the way this article ended up at AfD (per ANI thread), however I agree with the nom that there is not enough WP:SIGCOV on her to pass WP:GNG. The current sourcing is weak: a twitter message, a few mentions on blogs/fan sites, an interview and short mention (4 sentences) in Broadway World. I couldn't find anything in-depth online, perhaps its WP:TOOSOON. ~~BLPREQUESTDELETE and~~ WP:PROMO also applies. Netherzone (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked her and she does NOT want her article deleted. User_talk:Dorierosie#Do_you_want_your_article_deleted? She just wants accurate information. Dream Focus 17:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter what the person themselves want. If there are no sources to support significant coverage, we don't keep it. If the person knows of coverage missing from reliable sources, they could provide that to help, but that's about as far as they can help. --Masem (t) 23:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was in response to the BLPREQUESTDELETE votes, rather than as an argument the article should be kept. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably best to merge with John DiMaggio; sources don't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV at present. Obviously this can change if more information is published during her career but for now I'm not satisfied notability it met. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ignoring the BLPREQUESTDELETE aspect, the subject does not appear notable. The point of WP:ENT is meant to be to predict GNG likelihood (as affirmed in the deprecation discussion for ENT #2). It's more useful to rely on at time of article creation than at AfD. Considering the sources themselves, there's not really an indication of notability here. The article subject suggested we use IMDb or their personal website, neither of which are acceptable reliable sources. A policy-compliant article can't be written, hence the concerns from the article subject about incorrect information being added, but we can't really do so much better without proper sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No SIGCOV.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it ain't passing the GNG bar. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question OSE and all that, but what is the actual consensus on voice actors? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurie Hymes closed as keep (and I agree that the close reflected consensus) and she has a much thinner claim to notability than Miller. My original inclination here after reviewing the sources and history was to !vote delete, but if Hymes is notable, Miller likely is too. I'm torn Star Mississippi 19:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an absolute boilerplate example of WP:OTHERSTUFF. If the other article in question has less claim to notability then a keep result there was likely wrong, but should not impact this nomination or any other. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it shouldn't, but I wondered if it showed a changing consensus, or as you, Hemiauchenia alluded to, a less than ideal AfD. Having differing consensus in six months surprised me. Star Mississippi 22:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It can also be a matter of who is present each time; I would have argued for deletion on that one on SIGCOV grounds just as here, but wasn't a participant, likewise if I hadn't seen this one then there would similarly be a voice for deletion not present. Sometimes it's more luck than judgement which way a listing turns out. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Laurie Hymes keep vote is also erroneous. There's no sources that could be used to write about her, Wikipedia is not IMDB. The same problem is also true for Quinton Flynn who I have recently nominated for deletion, who has had a substantial number of roles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Hymes AFD was closed 'too quickly' (less then a week) & with only four editors input. The low input there, shows the lack of notability of Hymes. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

78 minutes early was hardly likely to affect the balance of consensus. Cabayi (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no WP:SIGCOV. Clog Wolf _Howl 16:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This should be nominated at a later date, as the nomination (and possibly votes) may have been influenced by the subject's (and associated COI user's) behavior, more than an impartial analysis of the the article. We should calm our emotions and at least give the article the same chance as other articles. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. scope_creep^Talk 19:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WWeak keep While I wish the sources were more reliable, as an actor she’s had at least a few notable credits (e.g. Trial of the Chicago 7) so in my opinion, the bare minimum of notability is there. Notability ≠ fame sometimes. Trillfendi (talk) 20:11, 3 November 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. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Round World version of the Silmarillion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 October 13 to decide between keep, delete, merge, or redirect. Please note that a simple redirect to The Silmarillion (without any relevant content on the target page) has been rejected at RfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have now massively expanded the article. The redirect that resulted from the previous AFD is singularly inappropriate because The Silmarillion page does not discuss the topic. Also inappropriate is Cosmology of Tolkien's legendarium#Spherical-earth cosmology page which only discusses the canonical version, not this version.

This is an important element (possibly the critical element as identified by Tolkien himself) in the evolution of JRR Tolkien's universe. Sources providing enough material to justify a standalone article include,

Christopher Tolkien, Morgoth's Ring – discussed at length
Elizabeth A. Whittingham The Evolution of Tolkien's Mythology – discussed at length
Douglas Kane Arda Reconstructed: The Creation of the Published Silmarillion – discussed at length
J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia – discussed in the entries for "Earth" [5], "Middle-earth" [6], and "The Silmarillion" [7]

SpinningSpark 21:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-as per above.Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 02:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Java Hurricane 06:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current version is infinity better than the unreferenced stub we had that got deleted: [8]. While the topic is extremely niche, it is arguably encyclopedic and in the current form perfectly fine for Wikipedia. Thanks for the rescue. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:HEY. Enough sources are now there in the article to pass WP:GNG, and I'm quite sure others may also be found. Java Hurricane 08:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does not seem to be such a minor topic after all looking the amount of primary sources. The secondary sources provided by Spinningspark show that the topic fulfills the notability requirements for a stand-alone article. Daranios (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable and sourced as it stands now. And there are no OR concerns, just for the record. Jclemens (talk) 07:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is clearly notable

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. Geschichte (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sum to Infinity (book)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOKS as well as GNG. WP:BEFORE didn't yield anything. --Gazal world (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as per above. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 02:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in media. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK Venkat TL (talk) 11:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sales rankings on Amazon don't really mean anything on here given that it's rarely tracked in a way that Wikipedia would recognize and the ratings from Amazon and sites like Goodreads don't count towards notability either. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any coverage of this book, even when searching in ProQuest which often has a lot more newspaper coverage than other places. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 01:35, 1 November 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. Geschichte (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahin Alam[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, has not played at a level sufficient enough to satisfy WP:NCRIC and by extension WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has only played in the Dhaka Premier Division Cricket League, which is in the not notable enough tournaments list of the official cricket page. And youth national appearances aren't enough either. Fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and Joseph2302's comments. Not sure there's a suitable redirect here as CA not listing any Dhaka Premier Division Cricket League appearances, but listing Bangladesh U19 appearances, so listing to either would be undue. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both of the relevant guidelines for cricketers Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:50, 2 November 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. I find McMatter's comments the most persuasive. Daniel (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beringer Capital[edit]

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

insufficient 3rd party substantial sourcing for WP:NCORP. Pitchbook is just a directory, giving directory information only. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - My search only found brief mentions or general announcements. Nothing satisfying WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I switched out the Pitchbook source for a Bloomberg source; additional sourcing from the Globe and Mail was added. This is a satisfactory stub that meets WP:GNG needs and could easily be expanded if people wanted to. Capt. Milokan (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:GNG There's nothing wrong with the sourcing in the article and I just added two more sources that further covered this private equity firm's activities over the past few years. I would be more impressed if people took the effort to expand a stub rather than try to delete it 17 minutes after it was added to this website. And Adoil Descended (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We purposely have a more stringent criteria for the sources used to establish notability of organizations and corporations at WP:NCORP. That is above and beyond the standard of WP:GNG. WP:ORGCRIT requires in depth coverage about the company itself not their routine business transactions. Most of the references provided are that of standard announcements and transactions none provide any real detail on the corporation or their history which fails the WP:ORGDEPTH test as they all represent trivial coverage. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:34, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NCORP. Mommmyy (talk) 18:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteas per nom and others. Clearly fails to meet WP:NCORP. -Hatchens (talk) 06:48, 4 November 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. Disregarding the opinion by Andrew Davidson, who has been topic-banned from AfD. Sandstein 08:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran (locomotive)[edit]

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

A search for sources found zero references to reliable sources. This locomotive is not notable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: Thanks for being vigilant. However, the reliable source is shown in Ancient Locomotive Still In Service. In: The Locomotive, by Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company. October 1925. Page 242. It explains: "The Veteran is said to be a sister engine to the famous locomotive The General." Please keep. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being related to something that is notable is not enough to establish notability for a different subject. See WP:INHERIT. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A WP:BEFORE search for "Veteran" in regards to this locomotive is inherently flawed. The only article in which it is mentioned (which, by the way, is not enough for notability) only refers to "veteran" in lowercase, preceding it with "a" and "this". Clearly not the actual name of the locomotive (compare to "General" in the article which is capitalized and in quotes). eviolite (talk) 11:16, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about it. Oaktree b (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Got time to look at it on my computer - the only possibly notable thing about the locomotive (that sets it apart) is its supposed sisterhood to The General, but this is completely unfounded (the only justification given by the one source is that they look similar) and there are no mentions of that (or indeed any mention of a locomotive matching this history that I could find) anywhere else. eviolite (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As the first sentence menitons "A VETERAN locomotive truly deserving the name", I guess that this was its name and that it is notable as a "Unique vehicle". --NearEMPTiness (talk) 14:55, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NearEMPTiness: Please do not make assumptions not backed in RSes with regard to the name. Note how it says "a veteran", i.e. it is one of many "veteran" locomotives (that that book just designated arbitrarily). If it were called "Veteran" as an actual name, why does it say This veteran is said to be a sister engine (not "The Veteran" as you claimed; that is a blatant misquote)? Also, read the section you linked yourself. It says in this case, it is the "type" that is significant, not its notability as an individual vehicle -- yet the article is entirely about this vehicle (and for the record, the term "veteran locomotive" does not pass GNG either after a quick WP:BEFORE; the only non-Wikipedia results are about a completely different one apparently designated "The Veteran's Locomotive"). eviolite (talk) 15:14, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I finally noted here that it was more likely known as "No 2".--NearEMPTiness (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that J. N. Bray Lumber Company is notable? If so, we could report about the loco in an article about this company. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, moved to J. N. Bray Lumber Company. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new article cannot stand as is. 90% of it is about the locomotive, not the lumber company. I still support its deletion. If you want to make an article about the lumber company, start a new one, don't hijack the locomotive article and change its topic entirely. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the out of process move/hijacking/whatever you want to call it (which certainly shouldn't have been done with an ongoing AfD). If there is enough material about the lumber company to write an actual article, people should be free to do that without the precedent of an out of process AfD which affected the wrong article. I note the only given source was this archive document; which wouldn't be enough to establish notability for it anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not start an edit war, without participating in the discussion. Reverting some of the recent changes was neither really useful nor in the interest of the project, as shown in this AfD discussion. The formal name was clearly not "A Veteran" or "This Veteran". NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for expanded participation. BD2412 T 18:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 18:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the activity above shows that there are sensible alternatives and policy WP:PRESERVE applies. The worst case would be merger to a more general (!) page such as Baldwin Locomotive Works#Locomotives. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No meaningful notabilty. Qwirkle (talk) 05:24, 28 October 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qasida of Dhaka[edit]

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

Non-notable short documentary released on YouTube. Article author, who appears to have a close connection to the topic, also created article about director Anarya Murshid, which another editor has nominated for deletion. There are no reviews, only press release-driven announcements of mostly non-notable festival screenings. The only award won was at a non-notable festival, so not a major award. WP:MOSFILM advises mentioning only festivals screenings that are noteworthy and not listing non-notable awards because of the proliferation of film festivals and "award mills". Does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Worldbruce (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Smells like promotion to me... Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 17:38, 30 October 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great Manhattan Mystery Conclave[edit]

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

Nothing in the sourcing indicates that this article meets the notability criteria for organizations. A recent comment in the history said: do not redirect without a clear consensus on talk. or go to articles for deletion [9]. Since there is no ideal target for a redirect, I'm bringing it here. Vexations (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to be sufficiently notable. Polyamorph (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom.Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 05:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Same as my edit summary when I tagged this, Google news searches with quotes yields no results, as did several other searches, except for a few mentions in the forwards of a few mystery novels, this is lacking in significant coverage unless there are sources we are missing. ASUKITE 14:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of any SIGCOV from reliable sources in the article.Brayan ocaner (talk) 14:52, 28 October 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 23:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review of education policies[edit]

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

UNESCO cruft. This isn't an encyclopedia article at all, it is just a description of what UNESCO wants to do. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 16:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one of many non-compliant articles that's come out of Meta:Grants:Project/UNESCO/Wikimedian in Residence at UNESCO 2019-2020, including lots of UNESCO POV without appropriate attribution and claims about "The uniqueness of UNESCO's approach to education policies review" sourced to...UNESCO. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated, this is not an encyclopedic article. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:32, 3 November 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Kern[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG; none of the sources used for this article are both independent and in-depth coverage. I am also concerned about the veracity of the article, which was created by a user now indefinitely blocked for adding hoax information to multiple articles (and is continuing to be edited by them through IP socks). Cheers, Number 5 7 15:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete I dont see a single claim for notability here in the article, clearly does not pass WP:NPROF. --hroest 20:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He seems to be a perfectly respectable high level school district administrator, but the content tends to being a tracking of mentions in news reports, nothing really is substantive all about himself. If notable for being superintendent of San Juan Unified School District, I would expect San Juan Unified School District to have more coverage in him, and on all past superintendents. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Honestly he has more coverage than a lot of other articles on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.235.28.72 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
- Struck as this is a sock of the article creator. Number 5 7 18:16, 1 November 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 speedily merged/redirected. BD2412 T 17:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lightyear (2022 film)[edit]

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

There is already an article about Lightyear. --> Lightyear (film) - ZX2006XZ (talk) 15:43, 27 October 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. There's a strong consensus for keeping the article, with several editors citing WP:GNG and some citing that it has a lasting effect. However, the article needs some clean-up as indicated below. Since the event has been on a roll for days, it would be best for this to be reviewed again in a year or so. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 15:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Go Brandon[edit]

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

This recent slogan is related to the "Fuck Joe Biden" chant previously discussed at the Fuck Joe Biden AfD that closed as a snow delete on September 27, 2021. Notability does not appear to be supported at this time, due to insufficient support for the historic or lasting importance of this recent slogan per WP:EVENTCRIT by independent and reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)- nomination updated with additional detail Beccaynr (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Keep. Notable meme. One of the songs inspired by this chant, by Losa Alexander, is already on the Billboard Hot 100 this week (see https://www.billboard.com/charts/hot-100 for the week of Oct. 30, 2021). A different song with the same title by Bryson Gray is at #1 on the Apple Music chart. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are now two different songs with this title in the top 40 of the Billboard Hot 100. See Hot 100 for week of Nov. 6, 2021. How many political memes have inspired even one hit record, much less two? Not many, as far as I know. (Compare Fuddle duddle, but the songs it inspired charted lower in the relevant country.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I accepted this from draftspace based on the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast and the reliable sources such as BBC and Slate in the article. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 15:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is established per the BBC and Slate articles referenced in the comment above. This now a notable part of the Conservative lexicon, similar to Trump derangement syndrome, and its endurance is likely so long as Biden is president. Banana Republic (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the songs based off the meme mentioned by Metropolitan90 and the sources provided by 力 and Banana Republic Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blast it to Draftspace with TNT - While the songs may be notable, article at present is a mess; the accepted version covering the meme relied on too many deprecated sources and is likely why it has been brought here. The article should cover the songs, with at best a background section on the meme that inspired them. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Public image of Joe Biden per Hut 8.5 GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: article at present is a mess is not a reason for deletion. You can improve it. Per 力, the article has very solid references. Banana Republic (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vote delete, did I? Also, I have been attempting to "improve" it [10], meanwhile you've given me a bad-faith template on my talk page. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With WP:RS coverage in multiple outlets this is notable. It also appears to be WP:SUSTAINED - WP:NTEMP also applies. And I am just going to say it: If this was about Trump it might be a snow keep. Lightburst (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ridiculous, we don't have an article about the phrase "Fuck Trump" despite the fact that people said it all the time and it had a song made about it (which is where Fuck Trump currently redirects to). Mlb96 (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately. As per the rules, this is getting notable coverage via RS.....so there is probably no way around it. Hopefully this sort of thing will make wiki re-think the rules.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above, and also WP:EFFECT. TiggerJay (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It'a a notable meme. It is covered in conservative sources, it is covered in mainstream "reliable" reliable sources, and if Wikipedia is going to host encyclopedic pages on memes (see Category:Political Internet memes), this one is happening, widespread, and sourced. (There are a lot of people fighting this meme for what seems to be no other reason than that it targets a Democrat. That is a shame and violates Wikipedia's NPOV intent.) I agree the article should be improved and well-sourced. So should all Wikipedia articles! KEEP! TuckerResearch (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC) P.S. Why is this listed on list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions? Tsk. TuckerResearch (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The conspiracy theories-related del-sort was added based on recent reports from independent and reliable sources, e.g. BBC (October 12, 2021): "The perceived media filter has also been a key component for the popularity of the Brandon meme. Some conservatives view Ms Stavast's attribution of the Biden chant as yet another example of the media covering up for and protecting Biden by downplaying what they view as the depth of the president's unpopularity." And e.g. The Washington Post (October 23, 2021), discussing "Let's go Brandon": "Trump supporters instantly saw signs of a coverup, claiming on social media that journalists were deliberately censoring anti-Biden sentiment." Beccaynr (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation. But isn't that implying that any conservative surmise about political bias in the media is, ipso facto, a conspiracy theory? TuckerResearch (talk) 18:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the Kelli Stavast RfC about "Let's Go Brandon" and the Brandon Brown RfC about "Let's Go Brandon" I have discussed my concern about sources including a focus on how Stavast is accused, without any apparent evidence, of being involved in a 'cover up' etc. I hope this helps clarify the focus on this event and its portrayal in the recent burst of news coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 20:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It'd be nice if we could stop at any time the aspersions that have been persistent in these discussions for weeks now. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No cuss words this time? The Mote and the Beam. The Mote and the Beam. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you attacking people's motives is in any way relatable to me using some words you don't like. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This passes the WP:GNG, and poignantly captures the level of maturity of current American political discourse, which will be of interest to future generations of researchers looking back on this period. BD2412 T 18:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ~~This recent event is noted in the Public image of Joe Biden article, and there is a pending Redirect for discussion for Let's Go Brandon.~~ My concern is whether the recent sources are sufficient to demonstrate the historic or lasting significance for a standalone article, as described in WP:EVENTCRIT, including because per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not, and per WP:INDEPTH, Media sources sometimes report on events because of their similarity (or contrast, or comparison) to another widely reported incident. Editors should not rely on such sources to afford notability to the new event, since the main purpose of such articles is to highlight either the old event or such types of events generally. Beccaynr (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC) - comment updated Beccaynr (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For example, The Independent (October 14, 2021) describes this event as a "blip", i.e. "The insult to Biden also snubs the “liberal media” – the blip is being used as an example by Trump supporters of how certain outlets bend the truth." Maybe this event belongs in an article that is notable per WP:NFRINGE, but on its own, it does not seem to have independent and reliable support per WP:EVENT, which is a guideline formed with the intention of guiding editors in interpreting the various pre-existing policies and guidelines that apply to articles about events, including WP:GNG [...] and its relationship to WP:NOT#NEWS (i.e. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of news material). Beccaynr (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep I agree that it passes WP:GNG, but I would suggest revisiting the topic in 6-12 months. Capt. Milokan (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG. SaltySaltyTears (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This clearly meets WP:GNG. I !voted delete at WP:Articles for deletion/Fuck Joe Biden because I did not see lasting coverage at that time. Now, however, it appears that there is not only lasting coverage of those chants, but also of derivative chants. Wikipedia is not news, which is important to keep in mind, but the topic (broadly construed as an anti-Biden social phenomenon that permeates sporting events) is more than a mere news story at this point. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I appreciate your perspective on this, because I think framing the topic as broader than this recent event could support a selective merge and redirect ~~to where this has already begun to be covered in Public image of Joe Biden.~~ "Let's Go Brandon" does not appear to be more than a brief burst of news, according to the RS discussed here, while the broader encyclopedic context as an anti-Biden social phemonenon is being developed elsewhere. This article includes five post-2013 WP:NEWSWEEK sources, four from the partisan Washington Examiner (per WP:RSP), and one from WP:TMZ, as well as a variety of recent independent and reliable sources, which seems insufficient per WP:EVENT for a standalone article. Beccaynr (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC) - comment updated Beccaynr (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - Notability requires lasting significance. This is a meme, and as with any stand-alone article about a meme, we need to show more than just a short-term burst of coverage, even if there is a lot of coverage in that burst. If this is still indeed a popular phrase receiving news coverage in a few weeks, not opposed to recreation (or even draftifying in the meantime). For some topics, it's harmless enough to say "ok, we don't have evidence of lasting coverage, but let's wait and see." I'd argue that for any contentious area, including BLPs, that that is not a good approach. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Updated: Struck delete !vote. It's been nearly six days since I !voted, and the coverage has barely slowed down. I'm stopping short of !voting keep, because I'm not sure about a merge. Certainly not to public image of Joe Biden -- a simple expression of derision with no specifics doesn't seem related to "public image" any more than the number of votes the person got or a time people clapped for him -- but possibly somewhere else? Not sure, so just abstaining for now. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another merge option that has been suggested is List of internet memes#Politics, and there is an article for Let's Go Brandon (song). From my view, it seems reasonable for various groups to want a Wikipedia article for promotion of a new viral phenomenon, perhaps especially if it is commercial or political, and I think the question here is how to apply our inclusion criteria for standalone articles about recent viral phenomena and "shock" news - do we first delete or merge and then wait for lasting, historical significance to develop sufficiently to create an article? or do we permit articles without demonstrated lasting and historical significance to stand, and then revisit them at some indefinite point in the future when it seems reasonable to expect that lasting, historical significance should have developed? I am concerned that !votes advocating to keep the article and revisit later are implicitly conceding the current lack of lasting, historical significance, and this rationale actually supports deletion or merger at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC) - comment updated Beccaynr (talk) 14:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ample coverage found about this. Dream Focus 01:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, per the already overwhelming consensus above. May I quote from the AfD on the far less notorious incident, Covfefe, all of which apply exponentially more here, since this one originated in real life, going viral both on and off of social media: "Notable event, and funny!" -- "It's a developing phenomenon which may yet acquire greater notability than it has already." -- "The article should be kept for historical reasons." -- "It is becoming a cultural artifact." -- I would add that the impression this meme has made upon the psyche of the public is profound and indelible. This AfD is a waste of time and should be closed posthaste, because the very idea of not having an article on this topic is absurd. - JGabbard (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The article for covfefe wasn't kept at AfD. It was merged, and then recreated more than two years later, once lasting significance had been demonstrated. It's possible that the effect of this meme have been profound and indelible. Scholars may write books about it for decades or longer. We may tell our grandkids about it, talk about where we were when we heard how the reporter hilariously misunderstood what a crowd was saying and then a bunch of other people said it, too. But we could, you know, wait for evidence of that lasting significance, too. Just saying. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The meme has clearly already established notability, and it will assuredly have lasting significance to at least the same extent that the current administration does. - JGabbard (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I do see the merits of a weak keep (it's part of the Congressional Record now, like it or not), but a lot of this article seems to have used a saved draft and sources of the deleted FJB article as its base, and there's a lot of lousy Newsweek, TMZ, and 'explainer in 500 words' sources we wouldn't usually allow in other articles (and which I was attacked for reminding others aren't proper). I really doubt this is still going to hit WP:N in May and we'll be back here with a lot more peaceful discussion, but every AfD and RfD discussion related to this since the FJB deletion has been bludgeoned with 'look, this (thing) says its notable' things, along with a complete disregard for AfD process where we never create new articles through it. Sadly, these odd slogans you need to research to know the meaning of if your TV isn't stuck on a political news channel 24/7 are becoming too normalized and WP:N isn't being applied where it should. And I do realize I'm in a minority here now where I prefer to see well-formed articles rather than just throwing anything into mainspace and calling it a day (re: Cooper Hoffman). Nate • (chatter) 03:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mrschimpf: All required for notability guidelines to be passed is that the sources exist, not that the sources currently be in the article. And, sources exist (1 2 3 4 5 6 7), so I really don't see question on notability. I'm also finding a number of fact-checks related to various claims of censorship regarding the phrase (1 2 3 4) as well as an apparent song that's actually topped some charts that is closely related to the phrase. In light of the existence of other sources, there might be an argument you'd make for draftification to improve the article owing to some of the problems described above, but also I'm not convinced that doing so would be better than making bold edits to improve the page while it's in the mainspace. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Weakest possible keep, under protest The Southwest pilot deciding to interject this on Friday has led to a whole lot of mainstream 'explainer articles' through this weekend, in addition to the pilot getting write-ups. There are much more important things to write about, but with more than fringe media talking about it now...it hit the lowest possible WP:N peg. I expect in a few months when clear-out stores have buckets of LGB merchandise for a buck this will get deleted or redirected to some political meme graveyard article where the ones that weren't above Tippecanoe and Tyler Too live on, but for now...sigh. We can do a lot better than this, and I still think the majority of the sources being explainers is a discredit to our processes. I also continue to stand by my original rationale despite the vote! being struck by myself. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The slogan has received notable news and media coverage, and now even has several chart-appearing and even chart-topping songs named after it. I believe this to be a safe keep, and that it will be a meme, political protest, and dog whistle of important enough definition in reflection of Biden's presidency. See basket of deplorables; Trump supporters called themselves "deplorables" as a repurposing of Hillary Clinton's choice of words when she talked down about them.

And one more suggestion: I am of the opinion that Black conservative rapper Bryson Gray is deserving of his own Wikipedia article. His recent song "Let's Go Brandon" topped the Apple iTunes charts, and he was also featured in the film Uncle Tom, produced by Larry Elder. I, as a person who specializes in music-related articles, believe his recent chart-topping and coverage, particularly recently, easily fits WP:N (music) standards, even considering his status as an independent artist. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 08:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mikehawk10. W C M_email 11:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies GNG.LM2000 (talk) 11:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename & Keep I think it would more appropriate and encyclopedic to keep this information, however include both this and Fuck Joe Biden as part of a broader page such as Slogans critical of Joe Biden or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwennie-nyan (talk • contribs) 12:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep obviously notable MarshallKe (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC) (partially redacted under WP:RPA)[reply]
- Careful with accusations you just made. These accusations do not Assume Good Faith. This method of communication is not consistent with policy and guidelines. As such I have redacted them under WP:RPA. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 14:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources to meet GNG. Given that it is become as of now the main meme used by the opposition to the president to criticize him, it is likely to have at least some lasting significance. And per WP:LASTING, "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Rlendog (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - perhaps bring it back later. I agree with Rhododendrites here. This is very recent and we have no way to know if this is a flash in the pan thing or a meme that really has staying power. If there is an interest in this 6 months or a year from now and articles continue to discuss it, then recreate the article. Springee (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - as MarshallKe stated, obviously notable. Literally, the only reason I could think of to delete this is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, other than the reasons I can't write here. The proposal for deletion stated WP:EVENTCRIT as the reason. WP:EVENTCRIT states: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." It was covered even in my country - Croatia, by left-leaning Jutarnji list ([11]). StjepanHR (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

extended discussion re: WP:RPA
(Personal attack removed) Removed veiled personal attack per WP:RPA. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] Please, behave noramlly. There was no personal attack here. Read WP:RPA ("removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack") before removing other people's comments, please. StjepanHR (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] The "veiled personal attack" removed was other than the reasons I can't write here. Upon whom is this a PA? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] The user concurred with MarshallKe, who directly attacked the nominator. Those attacks were removed, then this user writes the above amongst the few things he can think of why there is an AfD here. Have I explained myself well enough? I don't believe I'm out of line here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] Ah. StjepanHR concurred about 2 hours after the PA was removed. I'm minded to AGF since it does not appear directed at anyone in particular. YMMV. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] I think it is clear that I refered to "obviously notable" part of the post, since it was all that was written at the moment. As for the "other reasons", I mistakenly thought GhostOfDanGurney started the AFD and he has a history of quite rude remarks ([12] that ARE serious attack on those who are politically different to him, calling us, as I prefer President Trump to Biden, "idiots". My mistake resulted from him starting a section to remove "Let's Go Brandon" from Brandon Brown's page ([13]) and I confused the two.StjepanHR (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] @StjepanHR: I apologize. The remark in question was made on my user page as an outburst in response to what I felt were SPAs that had came to the Kelli Stavast AfD !voting keep to WP:ATTACK her over the meme. It way far too big of a generalization and in poor form either way and I regret making it. I understand my behaviour is embarrasing at times and is the cause of a lot of the negativity I've been perceiving. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] I accept it and I understand even people who share my political opinions (icluding me) can be jerks sometimes, as I guess has happened to You. I know it's sometimes hard to control ourselves, but, for the sake of de-escalating conflicts, it is best to release the anger off-line instead of here :) I know we are on the different sides of this issue, but I really appreciate this gesture of Yours. StjepanHR (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] Thank you :] GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

extended discussion re: WP:RPA

(Personal attack removed)

Removed veiled personal attack per WP:RPA. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, behave noramlly. There was no personal attack here. Read WP:RPA ("removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack") before removing other people's comments, please. StjepanHR (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "veiled personal attack" removed was other than the reasons I can't write here. Upon whom is this a PA? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user concurred with MarshallKe, who directly attacked the nominator. Those attacks were removed, then this user writes the above amongst the few things he can think of why there is an AfD here. Have I explained myself well enough? I don't believe I'm out of line here. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 22:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. StjepanHR concurred about 2 hours after the PA was removed. I'm minded to AGF since it does not appear directed at anyone in particular. YMMV. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is clear that I refered to "obviously notable" part of the post, since it was all that was written at the moment. As for the "other reasons", I mistakenly thought GhostOfDanGurney started the AFD and he has a history of quite rude remarks ([12] that ARE serious attack on those who are politically different to him, calling us, as I prefer President Trump to Biden, "idiots". My mistake resulted from him starting a section to remove "Let's Go Brandon" from Brandon Brown's page ([13]) and I confused the two.StjepanHR (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@StjepanHR: I apologize. The remark in question was made on my user page as an outburst in response to what I felt were SPAs that had came to the Kelli Stavast AfD !voting keep to WP:ATTACK her over the meme. It way far too big of a generalization and in poor form either way and I regret making it. I understand my behaviour is embarrasing at times and is the cause of a lot of the negativity I've been perceiving. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I accept it and I understand even people who share my political opinions (icluding me) can be jerks sometimes, as I guess has happened to You. I know it's sometimes hard to control ourselves, but, for the sake of de-escalating conflicts, it is best to release the anger off-line instead of here :) I know we are on the different sides of this issue, but I really appreciate this gesture of Yours. StjepanHR (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :] GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELSORT discussion
Question - I became aware of this nomination because it is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians. What is the name of the band or musician that has been nominated for deletion, and under what musician-specific notability criteria? And since this is also listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women, please advise on the name of the woman whose article has been nominated for deletion. It is difficult to vote without such information. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK\|CONTRIBS) 17:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] @Doomsdayer520: It was likely added to those lists because there have been several bands which have done covers of this topic, and this article (not the band, musician, song) is undergoing an AfD. Along the same lines, person who appeared to have coined this term was a woman - however her article has a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination).TiggerJay (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] I tried to explain in edit summaries after Doomsdayer520 removed this discussion from del-sort pages [14], [15], [16], but please also note this AfD is categorized as a Media and Music debate, due to the content of the article. I also think a discussion about the del-sort decisions would be best to continue on the Talk page of this AfD as needed, because it does not seem directly relevant to the AfD discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply] You all missed the point. Delsort pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women lose their utility for subject matter experts when cluttered with entries on AfDs that are not about those topic areas. This one is about deleting or keeping "Let's Go Brandon" which is neither a band nor a woman. Oh well, enjoy the clutter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK\|CONTRIBS) 14:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DELSORT discussion

Question - I became aware of this nomination because it is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians. What is the name of the band or musician that has been nominated for deletion, and under what musician-specific notability criteria? And since this is also listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women, please advise on the name of the woman whose article has been nominated for deletion. It is difficult to vote without such information. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Doomsdayer520: It was likely added to those lists because there have been several bands which have done covers of this topic, and this article (not the band, musician, song) is undergoing an AfD. Along the same lines, person who appeared to have coined this term was a woman - however her article has a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelli Stavast (2nd nomination).TiggerJay (talk) 17:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to explain in edit summaries after Doomsdayer520 removed this discussion from del-sort pages [14], [15], [16], but please also note this AfD is categorized as a Media and Music debate, due to the content of the article. I also think a discussion about the del-sort decisions would be best to continue on the Talk page of this AfD as needed, because it does not seem directly relevant to the AfD discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You all missed the point. Delsort pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bands and musicians and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women lose their utility for subject matter experts when cluttered with entries on AfDs that are not about those topic areas. This one is about deleting or keeping "Let's Go Brandon" which is neither a band nor a woman. Oh well, enjoy the clutter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Public image of Joe Biden. This does pass the GNG, but I'm not convinced that this has lasting notability, which is needed per WP:NOTNEWS / WP:EVENTCRIT. While there is plenty of media coverage all of it is from the last few weeks and doesn't mean it will still have significance years from now. It isn't always easy to guess how much coverage something will get in the future, but internet memes often have a short shelf life and Category:Chants is very short on articles on older political chants (I can only see one). Hut 8.5 19:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I googled the phrase in question, up came a search page on which the page under consideration here is prominent and seemed by far the best answer to my question. (Yay, wikipedia) I came to the page because I had not yet learned what it was about. The page seems pretty straight forward to me and is not a mess. (Perhaps it has been improved since it was declared a mess?) It is an informative page, and the claim by someone that the information is available on a page about President Biden's public image is inadequate - I originally said "not true" because the reference is so obscure that I missed it when I first looked at the page Public image of Joe Biden where it is too brief to give much of an explanation. Milesnfowler (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The phrase is well noted by news sources over the last couple of weeks. I would also expand the article as it is still quite short. Finally, per User:Hut 8.5, a Redirect would also be appropriate for the time being. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 21:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - The article has expanded a ton to justify the change from a Weak Keep to a Keep. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 14:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You just can't stop this train. People are searching for this chant or term. People want to understand where the meme came from and the meaning to a large portion of people. We need to stop being so biased or this important experiment (Wikipedia) will fail. I honestly try to be as neutral as possible.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:PAGEDECIDE. I'm seeing a lot of confusion above regarding WP:Notability criteria, the questions of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS, the concept of WP:GNG being sufficient for creating an article (it's not; it's just a minimum bar), not to mention WP:NOTCRYSTAL in comments like "it will assuredly have lasting significance to at least the same extent that the current administration does". The fact is, when a meme hits, we don't yet know whether it has lasting significance or not, only that everybody is talking about it right now. But even if it's clearly notable, even it meets GNG with a hundred press mentions, that doesn't mean it qualifies for a standalone page right now.

Will this still be being discussed six weeks from now? Eighteen months? After the next President is elected? Who knows? Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE and there is no emergency about having this topic have its own article; as long as the content is merged and redirected appropriately (perhaps to List of internet memes#Politics, or to Public image of Joe Biden as is already mentioned) anybody searching Google or Wikipedia for the phrase, will come straight to the correct (merged) article destination. They might even learn about related internet memes, or related public image issues, that they wouldn't have if they came straight here; remember also, that tracking studies show that most readers spend only a minute or two on an article and never read past the lead.

A paragraph or two at another article is more than enough to cover this for now until we know whether this really has staying power or not. So, for now, merge and redirect it to the best target (with a ((Further)) or section-top ((See also)) link to the other one) and wait patiently to see how this develops. Every time some meme bursts into prominence, there is feverish activity on both sides whether to delete or not, with the same arguments about GNG and NOTNEWS trotted out for each one, like they were stamped out of the same press. Just be patient, until we know how this shakes out; there's all the time in the world to create a standalone article about this, for right now curious users won't miss out on anything if a proper redirect is supplied. Mathglot (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep far too much content herewill be swamped by a redirect, while also bearing in mind WP:NOTPAPER. Kingoflettuce (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Public image of Joe Biden: I'm open to other merges as well such as to List of internet memes#Politics. This is a non-notable meme that has questionably reliable sources and not enough lasting coverage. ––FormalDude talk 04:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Public image of Joe Biden as per above comments on merger. dh (talk) 06:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not, it's getting significant coverage in reliable sources, and that's the only thing that matters. For the people who are citing to WP:SUSTAINED, keep in mind that WP:CRYSTAL goes both ways: we don't know that this will have lasting coverage, but we also don't know that it won't. If coverage has completely died off in a few months, then the page can be renominated for deletion. Mlb96 (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This has become an internationl slogan. And it is here to stay, especially as ling as Biden is president. There is significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. Lesco Brandon (talk) 11:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC) — Lesco Brandon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (striking banned user !vote)[reply]
- Sure, just like with Campaign for the neologism "santorum". One chunk of garbage on Wikipedia justifies another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added SPA tag because this is the user's first edit. Plus, the username. Clearly here for a reason. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG. — Czello 13:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mlb96 above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and redirect to Public image of Joe Biden - No evidence of WP:SUSTAINED, but maybe in a couple years we can revisit that. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the current state of the article, seems to meet notability requirements. The prior AFD on the previous slogan was correctly closed as delete, because at that time, it was clearly not met the threshold for inclusion, but this has grown since then, and seems to be meeting minimum standards. --Jayron 32 15:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets GNG. Agree with Mikehawk10. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm for WP:PRESERVEing this article in some form, as there have been plenty of sources provided showing a global response, some with significant coverage, (e.g. the BBC and Independent UK articles), which supports WP:GEOSCOPE. The coverage in general goes above and beyond the standard of WP:GNG. The question is whether or not the article is best suited as a stand alone article or as part of some other mainspace article on the encyclopedia per WP:PAGEDECIDE. At this point I think the amount of coverage and context required for the understanding of "Let's Go Brandon" warrants an article independent of Public image of Joe Biden, which would be my preferred merge target should a merge be decided. The number of pageviews of "Let's Go Brandon" drawfs that of the Public image of Joe Biden article. And if everything from "Let's Go Brandon" were to be merged there, more than half of the page would be taken by content from this page. To best serve the encyclopedia and what readers are actually looking for, a stand alone article seems to be the best solution for this topic. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge: Lacking lasting coverage past the montly political newscycle; it's just a non-notable meme. This is mostly reserved to one-off instances, though a merge into Public image of Joe Biden and other similar articles may be of benefit. Curbon7 (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Same reasons as, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck Joe Biden, whereupon I do not think the consensus of which has changed in such a short time-span. Curbon7 (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably, but clear out the trash sources - Newsweek post-2013 is not an RS, Washington Examiner is dubious, iTunes charts are not usable even as chart sources, etc. But I think there's enough RS coverage to swing it - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just went through cleaning up the sourcing a bit, with a note in talk - David Gerard (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This phrase/chant/slogan has spread everywhere to the point where you can buy T-shirts with it, download rap songs hitting the top spots, see videos of the sports stadium outbreaks, etc. Yeah, common sense applies here and you can believe your eyes & ears with all the news, media stories. Google hits agree also, you should try it. This isn't going away as clearly GNG is met. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 21:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely. This is American History as it is being made; many won't like it but many didn't like Patrick Henry's writings at his time. This may evolve into an important movement on the American scene and it's meaning and origin are important to explain - Clint Collier 23:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.73.35 (talk) — 98.248.73.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete it. Most of the citations look fine to me although the article could definitely be touched up a bit, but thats what Wikipedia is for. Its also a popular slogan/meme right now. Kaleeb18 (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- and it seems that this discussion is being brigaded. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 01:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rockstone35:Do you mean Brigade (pejorative) as a personal attack? How would you classify one as a "brigader" in this case? Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 19:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bison X, I think he's referring to WP:BRIGADE. Anyways, both of you stop assuming bad faith. Curbon7 (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not assuming bad faith. There is literally brigading going on; as mentioned on ANI. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 23:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Public image of Joe Biden -- lomrjyo 🐱^{(✉ • 📝)} 02:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep Many notable sources. For better or worse, very much part of the zeitgeist. People come to Wikipedia for information. I try to see the deletionist point of view, but something like this AfD is a bridge too far. Moncrief (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this entry is true, then it should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.253.30.142 (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not, it's clearly notable and meets WP:GNG. MainPeanut (talk) 14:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly it's as notable and probably has at least as much staying power as other memes like Covfefe and many others TocMan (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable meme. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Public image of Joe Biden. Too soon to know if this meme will have a lasting impact. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; really silly meme, but notable; it's been in the news all over the place and is the title of a Billboard Hot 100 song. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The phrase passes notability and doesn't run afoul of recentism. There are many good sources and it is a strong overall article. There is no reason to delete.TJD2 (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Redacted)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.103.251.55 (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that I didn't post this entry, stricken as a double !vote, despite the (slightly botched) signature that imitates mine. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I completely removed the comment by the impersonating IP. Maybe it was ignorance or maybe it was malice; the IP can clarify that. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too notable not to. Shawn K. Quinn (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep. the phrase has spawned two number one songs by two different artists. it has achieved widespread popular use on television, signs and marquees. it represents a powerful tool to subvert big tech and main stream media's attempts to censor, control, and demonize the majority population of the U.S.A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.29.24 (talk • contribs)
This has become an iconic part of American society. In the future this will be a topic that people will want to research learn more about this period in time. --Nickgold81 (talk) 07:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since, in accordance with our Policies and Guidelines, this topic is self-evidently eligible to have its own article in Wikipedia, I'm highly disappointed by this deletion query. First, as to Wikipedia is not a democracy, consequently, consensus doesn't necsassirly dictate the existence or deletion of an article. Second, since Wikipedia is not censored, an encyclopedic subject must not be highjacked by political sentiments whether leftist or right-wing, which is not what I see happening to this one. In my humble opinion, the unnecessary delay and unencyclopedic barriers that made it harder to create this article is one solid piece of evidence of that specific attempt. Best Regards! The Stray Dog Talk Page 08:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
an encyclopedic subject must not be highjacked by political sentiments whether leftist or right-wing, which is not what I see happening to this one. please elaborate on this. The only discussion happening that be possible construed as "censorship" is the one on whether or not to name the reporter who first said the phrase, which is being discussed in accordance with WP:BLP policy, which supersedes, at least in my opinion, WP:NOTCENSORED. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 15:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as discussed by others - And note that the 4-syllable intonation behind the chant is nothing new. It's the same one as used by many sports fans for many years, as in "LET'S Go YANK-ees!" and "YANK-ees SU-uck!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too notable not to. The fact that there is a deletion query proves that it is notable enough to have people want to censor it.
- You can't vote twice. See 184.103.251.55 (talk · contribs) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To further cement notability, there is now a discussion because a pilot used this phrase over the PA. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/10/31/southwest-airlines-pilot-anti-biden-chant/ “an Associated Press journalist was on a flight from Houston to Albuquerque on Friday when she heard the pilot use the phrase “let’s go Brandon,” writing that it brought on “audible gasps from some passengers.” Audio of the pilot’s greeting, which The Washington Post could not independently verify, was separately circulating widely on social media.”. Samboy (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That Washington Post article also seems to indicate a lack of lasting, historical significance, because it concludes,
  Boos, jeers and profanities are nothing new for politicians, especially those who reach the White House. Former presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, as well as Trump, were all heckled, weathering protests along their motorcade routes and at events.
  Beccaynr (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing the article needs to point out is that it's not really about Biden, it's about the character (lack thereof) of the sore-loser Trumpies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Casting aspersions will only lose you an argument. How is that comment helpful? By strengthening their resolve? Useless. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Y'all have already decided to keep this garbage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been the subject of a great volume of RS coverage. And though the phrase has only existed for a few weeks, that coverage has examined the topic through a variety of angles (e.g. the inciting interview, the spread of the phrase as a conservative meme, its use by political figures, the songs it has inspired, and most recently the Southwest incident mentioned above). Per WP:EVENTCRIT: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". Merging the current content into Public image of Joe Biden would either result in a massive WP:UNDUE weight situation, or require extensive cuts of relevant information cited to reliable sources. Colin M (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Analysis in this recent The New York Times article also seems to indicate a lack of lasting, historical significance, e.g.

Karen North, a professor of digital media at the University of Southern California, who worked for the Clinton administration, said that a moment like the “Brandon” phrase “has the fun of being an inside joke or meme and the power of being a rallying cry at the same time.” But these moments seem to have an ever-shorter shelf life, Ms. North said. “Because new trends and memes spread so much more quickly,” she added, “people have something new to jump to more quickly.”

Beccaynr (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A single individual opining to the New York Times isn't a crystal ball. I don't see a reason to delete based off of a single prediction from a former Clinton administration official. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Analysis is also reported by NPR, which seems to support WP:NOTCRYSTAL, due to the lack of evidence at this time demonstrating a lasting, historical significance necessary to support this article per WP:EVENTCRIT, in an article updated on October 31:

Independent researcher Hampton Stall says the phrase itself is "shareable and adaptable" and can be used in public in "way[s] that cursing out the president cannot." [...] "I think it's sort of past the point where enough people in the mainstream political audience in the United States have heard it that it will be remembered in the future," he says. "It just maybe won't have the same level of staying power [as covfefe]."

And from the New York Daily News on October 31, this type of commentary also seems to suggest a lack of lasting, historical significance:

While public criticism, even vulgar, is not new, it’s the social media amplification that has enabled such sentiments to gain traction. “Before the expansion of social media a few years ago, there wasn’t an easily accessible public forum to shout your nastiest and darkest public opinions,” Dartmouth College history professor Matthew Delmont told AP.

Beccaynr (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I disagree that the articles are saying that "Let's Go Brandon" will not have lasting significance. The NPR piece seems to indicate the opposite. The line before the line you quoted said:

As for whether people will remember this meme in the future, Stall says it has likely reached the point where most people will know what others are saying when they say "Let's go, Brandon," just like many still remember Trump's "covfefe" typo turned meme.

Just because he doesn't think it has as much staying power as "covfefe" doesn't mean that it won't have any staying power. The New York Daily News comment doesn't say anything about the staying power of "Let's Go Brandon." The comment was just about how social media has enabled the propagation of such phrases to be more common, not necessarily saying that just because this kind of event is more common that it will have less staying power. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the independent researcher helps emphasize, particularly in the context of the other commentary I have added to this discussion, is that there is no evidence of a lasting, historical significance at this time, per WP:NOTCRYSTAL, e.g. "It just maybe won't have the same level of staying power [as covfefe]." And relatedly, the Thanks, Obama meme article was added to this article recently, and is an example of a meme that began in 2009, but did not become an article until 2016 [17], after its lasting, historical significance was established by independent and reliable sources. From my view, there has been no support offered in this discussion from independent and reliable sources to demonstrate a lasting, historical significance, and the sources noted in this discussion appear to either suggest there is no lasting, historical significance (e.g. because it is "not new") or that we cannot know at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 15:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think follow up events, primarily the Southwest Airlines incident [18], and the debate around the meme usage, are quickly rising it above the yet-another-political-meme significance. MarioGom (talk) 00:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENTCRIT includes, Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, and this recent "shock" news and viral phenomena does not appear to currently have support for the kind of lasting, historical significance described by the guideline, and therefore seems specifically excluded per WP:NOTNEWS at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fdr2001 (talk)
Keep - I kept seeing this phrase pop up on social media and I was like "Who is this Brandon guy?" The article gives context and could serve a useful purpose for other WP users who were similarly puzzled. KConWiki (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's notable. It's enduring. It's beginning to look a lot like Christmas. schetm (talk) 14:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Big Tech should not be in the business of deciding whose opinions will be heard. As distasteful as it may be, this meets the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia and for Wikipedia to delete it, would only confirm accusations of bias from the left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:9F8B:5600:58C7:E567:80C3:C772 (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm in favor of keeping this article, but the idea that Wikipedia's ragtag group (said affectionately, as I am one) of volunteer editors represents "Big Tech" is hilarious. Thank you for the morning chuckle. Moncrief (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Moncrief: Shhhhhhh. If you say things like that they may take our Facebook stock options away. And I'm relying on those to fund my retirement. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, much as I hate to canonize it with that vote: this seems to have enough staying power to warrant an article, at least for now. We can always revisit it in six months or so if it seems like it's fallen off. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep this article. I have heard this phrase often; however, those moments are in contexts where there is no explanation. I finally had a vague notion of the euphamism, and today I checked Wikipedia to inform myself about the phrase. Now I understand the background and why I heard a commentator laughing at it as a meadia bias. The article produces this value. I am surprised it is considered for deletion--please do not delete this article. Kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It’s been cropping up in a bunch of articles from reliable sources, and as Hu Nhu demonstrates the article does have reasonable use to readers due to suddenly being so popular. As much as I hate these forced right-wing memes that are just trying to get unwarranted attention I feel it’s probably notable. Dronebogus (talk) 16:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources: NPR [19], Newsweek [20], ABC News [21], The Hill [22], Slate [23], The Independent [24], BBC [25], Diário de Notícias [26], The Guardian [27], CNN [28]... MarioGom (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It will become a relic, like the "santorum" garbage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh? You can find references to the Santorum neologism in articles and books from the current year, almost 20 years after it was coined. Colin M (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - So does its author, that radio guy, still use it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's apples/oranges compared to this. Maybe try seeing what kind of consensus there is about it & consider another AfD. As Joaquín Andújar used to say, "Youneverknow." But this is off-topic, & you need to stop bringing it up everywhere. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 22:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it's precisely the same thing: Wikipedia glorifying vulgarisms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then it can be renominated in the future. Like I said earlier, WP:CRYSTAL goes both ways. Mlb96 (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Baseball Bugs, I may be flogging a dead horse, but your argument is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT mixed with Think of the children, especially since there’s literally an article about the Santorum incident. Dronebogus (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very strange that my non-admin closure was reverted. I was saving everyone's time, since the consensus for keep is truly overwhelming. There's no need to wait a week. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, it was definitely a premature close, as judged by an administrator. Curbon7 (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has become a extremely popular chant in the past few weeks for certain groups not just on the internet but in public.BigRed606 (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow close, it's undeniably notable.--Ortizesp (talk) 06:09, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. At most this deserves half a sentence on another article, but definitely not it's own page. Compare List of Internet Phenomena. Not only are half the entries there that don't even have a page of their own at least as much, if not more notable, many of the people voting "keep" seem to be under the impression that this is a majority vote, because they either don't give a reasoning, or their best argument is "i've seen this meme all over social media, therefore it's notable". If that's all it takes, we might as well start making separate articles for Longcat or Ugandan Knuckles, or just about any astroturfed right wing "meme" from the past six years that was spammed everywhere for a whopping week or so before being forgotten. 46.97.170.79 (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CSB. There would be no chance of this getting anywhere near as much airtime if it were in any other country in the world. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it wouldn't have that much coverage if it happened in a different country, but it did happen in the US and it's getting coverage in reliable sources from many countries and in many languages. Similar events not getting coverage in other countries is rarely a valid deletion rationale. WP:CSB is not a policy, not even an essay about deletion. MarioGom (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient sources around for this to fulfil WP:GNG. Some people might not like it but thankfully WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid rationale. On the merits of the sources, it has proven notability. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I already supported mentioning this in Talk:Brandon_Brown_(racing_driver). Well, it seems in Wikipedia it's impossible to just mention or note something negative, as it's deleted as unnoteworthy or non-neutral. Even Finnish media has mentioned this meme. --Mikko Paananen (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like it or not - this is here to stay. It's almost become it's own movement. RamotHacker (talk) 14:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's sufficient mainstream coverage at this point, and as noted in the articles itself multiple charting songs have been written referencing it. The article for Thanks, Obama is still standing, so we have covered similar political memes. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing fades out of the wider mainstream in like a month and most people sort of forget about it, but just because an event's notability was brief doesn't eo ipso mean it's insufficiently notable. Worst case we can always revisit the issue in the future. FN17 (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is Wikipedia; nothing that makes a Democrat look bad can be allowed. (Obey, pigs!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Clyde Crashcup (talk • contribs) 15:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck as a disruptive nonsense comment., Dr. Clyde Crashcup, don’t do that again or you’ll be taken to ANI and possibly blocked. Dronebogus (talk) 07:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very clear pass of WP:GNG and receiving significant coverage in reliable sources. Frank Anchor^Talk 17:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Has been in front page headlines for the past week, the WP:RS coverage is too significant for it to be deleted. LΞVIXIUS💬 17:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 5 days is a long time; between nomination and today now passes WP:EVENTCRIT: There's widespread, analytical, indepth, international and growing coverage by reliable sources. It's playing into diverse areas beyond politics - employment relations, music, social media. At the same time, given the discussions here, it wouldn't be unreasonable to bring this back to AfD in six months. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many sources from a variety of strands have covered this. It keeps viral and is getting even more coverage. Greenknight dv (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to another article. GoodDay (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I came to read the article after reading an article in The Australian, a google search reveals many explanatory news articles, as said above this seems to follow the airline pilot incident. Cavalryman (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The fact that the phrase appears to be mainly used by the terminally hard of thinking doesn't make it any less notable. Black Kite (talk) 11:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 3 November 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. Sandstein 08:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Führer[edit]

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

An academics who cannot be shown any notability to meet WP:NACADEMICS. Htanaungg (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Htanaungg (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Listed in Das katholische Deutschland: biographisch-bibliographisches, a selective national biographical dictionary. Additional references are available at the corresponding article in the German Wikipedia, de:Anton Führer Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is this the same Anton Führer that is the subject of this book [29]? The birth/death dates are one year off from the listing on the linked library listing, but everything else matches up. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The existing article says that they are two different people. "he is not to be confused with Alois Anton Führer, the Indologist who studied Sanskrit at the University of Würzburg and had a controversial career in India." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An earlier article with the same name was created and deleted on June 14, 2013. Could the 2013 article be restored so that anything useful in it could be added to the current article? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Not done. It was deleted per A3 as having no "meaningful, substantive content". But what content there was consisted of a link to an off-site attack page, probably about the other Anton Führer. Restoring it as if it were relevant to this article would be inappropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion about retention. Thanks for observations so far. I have added this article and was aware that something of the same name was deleted earlier, in 2013. The problem turns on the problematic Alois Anton Führer, for this which there is already a WIKI article. There is confusion between the two, as the discussion here indicates. They are different people, and Anton Führer is who did his dissertation at Göttingen on ancient Greek dialects, is not the same person. The Führer who went to India was born the same year -- and he is the subject of Charles Allen's book, mentioned above. Unfortunately the two are conflated, even in some of the library catalogues in Germany, as you can see from the link added to the page. The Vāsishṭhadharmaśāstram, edited by Rev. A A Führer (Rezension) Jolly, Julius. - Heidelberg : CrossAsia, 2020 -- is NOT by our man. As it turns out (see Falk's article cited in piece under discussion), this is considered now as a third-rate piece of scholarship and its author -- the India Führer -- went on to career of deception, being ultimately fired from his job in India for fraud and the misuse of funds. In WorldCat, our classical scholar is named as Anton Führer, so I have used that here. It seems rather sad that an entirely decent man should suffer the fate of being combined, by mistake, with the Führer who went to India. Where else to sort his out? Ordinary readers will be confused and a short entry will help clarify that the India Führer had no knowledge of ancient Greek. Given the number of publications by Anton Führer, I am a bit mystified why he is not consider notable. It might be argued that he would be better covered in German wikipedia, but this does not answer the problem that the impacts of the India Führer are mainly in the English speaking world. shirazibustan
Other works. Given there are several people of this name, I have not confirmed that the other works, like those on the Rheine, are by our Anton Führer. For that we would need help from a librarian in Germany I guess. shirazibustan
- It seems likely enough that the AF described in the Totenzettel link as director of the de:Gymnasium Dionysianum (Rheine) would be the author of the history of that school and likely also of the histories of Rheine, and presumably the namesake of Anton-Führer-Straße in Rheine, and I think [30] may be an adequate source for all these connections. What is less clear, though, is that this is the same AF who completed his PhD on Boeotian (I guess meaning Aeolic Greek) in 1876, and wrote about German and Latin grammar. Perhaps the katholische Deutschland source would clear that up, but it's offline. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:21, 27 October 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 Raise Vibration. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ride (Lenny Kravitz song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song should be redirected to album article. The song fails WP:NSONG in that the cited sources are about the album, mentioning the song in passing. Binksternet (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 13:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I raised these concerns with the creating editor, Lamro, the other day. The song did not achieve anything more than passing mentions in sources, and even then, as with other Kravitz songs of the same time, these mentions were mostly about a music video being made for the song. The rest of the mentions were in reviews of the album, and the song did not chart. Ss112 22:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raise Vibration. Non-notable song that fails WP:GNG. Not enough material for a reasonably detailed article. Ippantekina (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to its parent album Raise Vibration. The song never charted anywhere and citations that only mention the song once while reviewing the Raise Vibration album as a whole is not justification for independent notability. --mediafanatic17 talk 02:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raise Vibration. I agree with the above comments. I do not see evidence of significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources. However, since a viable redirect target exists and this is a viable search term, I think a redirect would be more beneficial for readers than an outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Raise Vibration. Fails WP:NSONG per nom. A WP:BEFORE shows only news about its music video. SBKSPP (talk) 00:49, 3 November 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. Nominated by a confirmed blocked sockpuppet with no other deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

High-speed Freight Trains (Japan)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet with WP:NTRAN. || Orbit Wharf 12:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. || Orbit Wharf 12:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. || Orbit Wharf 12:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the articles I'm finding are discussing high-speed trains (350 km/h) in China being used to carry parcels. I wonder if potential sources are being drowned out here. NemesisAT (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this was translated from ja:高速貨物列車. I would see if there's any possible articles this could be merged. – The Grid (talk) 12:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and close The nominator has been blocked a sock and was evading a block at the time of this nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:13, 28 October 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. Tone 15:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Zoob[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced. Fails WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 11:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I voted to delete this band in their first AfD about 9 months ago. That AfD ended up as "no consensus" because several voters vowed that sources must exist but the band was suppressed by the old Communist regime, their Polish Wikipedia article has more sources, and the like. I think those are valid concerns, but if those sources really do exist nobody ever put them into the article. If similar sentiments appear this time, I hope Admins will take a "put up or shut up" stance and delete the article if nobody truly delivers on the sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 17:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I will also add that most of the keep votes were based on "has charted on the LP3 charts". But these were not official national charts, and editors who know something about them have said that they were based on user votes, not on sales or airplay. So this wouldn't be a valid "keep" reason. Richard3120 (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added the sources Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Artemis Andromeda: Discogs is not a reliable source. It is created by folk, not checked by any editorial team, so it is an SPS source. scope_creep^Talk

Reliable source for bands are covered by WP:MUSICRS. I don't see any these on the article being used in the article. The 3rd reference is an annoucment of a new track (193 words), the 1st is a short interview and 2nd is a notice of death. No reviews, no coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:44, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this is ok. I've checked the 6 references and they're typically band fare. There is one song on Youtube with 32million views. They seem to have some classic songs and the references seem to show longevity. Has anybody got any other thoughts? scope_creep^Talk 14:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now. Topic seems notable, but there just doesn't seem to be too many sources available. The sources in the article do look fine to me, however. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per my arguments at the first AfD and consensus at pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:01:16:Mr. Zoob. I do agree that this is borderline, and desperately needs better sourcing. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:23, 29 October 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JKEDI Siege[edit]

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

Routine event WP:ROUTINE DTM (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't see WP:EFFECT being met here. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 29 October 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sociedad Sacerdotal Trento[edit]

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

There is no RS I could find which talks about this organisation. I do not even know what the official name of this organisation is. The only sources I found mentioning this organisation are random personal blogs ([31], [32], [33]). Veverve (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was reviewed six months ago by User:Whiteguru. A redirect to this article, Unión Católica Trento, was reviewed one month ago by User:Rosguill. What's the official name? A very confusing question; the answer is "Sociedad Sacerdotal Trento" (how did you come up with that question?). The information here ([34]) is compiled from other sources. King Pius (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@King Pius: how did you come up with that question? I came up with it by not finding any RS calling it this way, and by seeing a name you put in the article which is not the same as the title of the article, i.e. "Priestly Society of Trent", as the name of the subject. Veverve (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Sociedad Sacerdotal Trento", in English, "Priestly Society of Trent". Or are you saying that you're confused as to what is the difference between the "Union Catolica Trento" and the "Sociedad Sacerdotal Trento"? King Pius (talk) 12:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@King Pius: You have not provided any RS for this claim this time either. Veverve (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: Which claim? King Pius (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@King Pius: the name of the group. Veverve (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: Here's one: "Tradicionalismo católico postconciliar y ultraderecha en Guadalajara". Universidad de Guadalajara. King Pius (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox tells me it is not safe to download the file. Veverve (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with it. King Pius (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: Why did you remove this reference? Gary L. Ward, Bertil Persson, and Alain Bain, eds., Independent Bishops: An International Directory [Detroit, MI: Apogee Books, 1990]. King Pius (talk) 15:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it, because the only information it supported could not stand alone, as I explained. Veverve (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The three priests founded the Tridentine Catholic Union. How could that information not stand alone? King Pius (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only information this source was given as a reference to in the article was (Tridentine Catholic Union). I could not check the source. Veverve (talk) 06:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what the book says. What's wrong if it just mentions the Tridentine Catholic Union? We can't use its proper Latin name, "Union Catolica Trento", because you don't accept Griff's book. But at least we have something which according to you is RS which mentions the English name. Why don't you accept it?

I could not check the source.

How is that an excuse? Respectfully, that's your problem. King Pius (talk) 06:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question -- How many orders of priests do the sedevacantalist have? My impression is that this is a small Catholic splinter denomination. If so, we should seek to merge multiple articles back to one on the denomination. We should not get hung up on what can be sourced from RS. If the information is in fact true, an article is capable of being kept (unless there are BLP issues). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: By orders, do you mean congregations?

My impression is that this is a small Catholic splinter denomination.

It's not a denomination. It's a clerical congregation that claims to be in the Catholic Church. It's a major sedevacantist religious congregation, and is mentioned in Sedevacantism. King Pius (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

I am unfamiliar with Catholic clerical groupings. In my world a congregation is a local church. I may have misused the word "order".

Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' as has reliable sources book coverage as shown in the article and should therefore be included, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: None of the RSs mention this group, only the lives of individual bishops. No RS support even the names of this group. Veverve (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my keep vote as am somewhat confused by the article's notability or lack of, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moisés Carmona. Most of the sources for the article on this niche society overlap with the ones from the article on Bishop Carmona. I'm not seeing enough coverage from reliable sources about the society itself, independent from the coverage of Bishop Carmona. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be weird as this society was founded after Bishop Carmona's death. King Pius (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:33, 5 November 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. ✗plicit 11:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeng Jundian[edit]

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

Fails BIO, all of the sources are either not reliable, not related to the subject or just straight-up dead link AINH (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added sources for multiple museum collections. Vexations (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per collections found by Vexations. meets NARTIST. --- Possibly ☎ 02:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:BIO. I am surprised this was relisted rather than closed. Capt. Milokan (talk) 02:50, 28 October 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bougainville Photoplay Project[edit]

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

Eight years without a usable source is enough to call this a non-notable work. There are a few mentions in books, but the coverage does not appear to be in-depth, nor does the work appear to be influential or award-winning. BD2412 T 01:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 01:42, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete as far from notable, as the nominator stated. Ode+Joy (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was part of a large spam effort by currency press to promote their publications of scripts. They focussed more on their book than on the plays themselves and they included a spamlink to their shop. The infobox should be changed from book to play. That said the play itself is notable. Below is a selection of coverage it recieved, satisfying GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Morning Herald

"PITCHED somewhere between cosy university tutorial and travelogue slide show, Dr Paul Dwyer's Bougainville Photoplay Project is an illustrated account of restorative justice in action. It is accessible, disarmingly funny and affecting."

Real Time Arts

SBS

Review, Belvoir St Theatre - Smith, Gary (15 November 2010), "Theatre", The Daily Telegraph

"But Dwyer's studious persona combined with his often quirky and sardonic delivery manages to weave great moments of humour among the sadness, at times to powerful effect."

Review, Brown's Mart Theatre - Watkins, Emily (20 August 2010), "Dwyer's - project - a treat", Northern Territory News

"Always engaging, passionate and with a fair dose of dry humour throughout, The Bougainville Photoplay Project is a thought-provoking, entertaining show that leaves you wiser."

Article - Clarke, Suzanna (14 August 2010), "Digging up ugly past", Courier Mail

"Dwyer, who teaches performance studies, has written and stars in a one-man show The Bougainville Photoplay Project, based on his personal exploration of the island's troubled history."

Review, Old Fitzroy Theatre - Pickard, Nicholas (18 October 2009), "The Bougainville Photoplay Project", The Sun Herald

7/10. "Directed by David Williams and with video design by Sean Bacon, this is a production of simple and earnest storytelling."

Review, Multicultural Fringe Festival - Maclean, Alanna (12 February 2008), "Pilgrimage exposes pain of exploitation", The Canberra Times

"This peculiar mixture of theatricality and real stories works. As with version 1.0's other shows, the result is not only a more informed audience but also a more feeling one. Dwyer shows us the humanity of Bougainville."

Not of use for notability but could help flesh out an article.

[35]

@Duffbeerforme: would you be interested in adding these to the article? BD2412 T 01:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do it yourself. I included quotes to make it easy. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per duffbeerforme, if the article is changed to the play. Deus et lex (talk) 18:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per duffbeerforme. Sources for the play are enough to pass GNG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:58, 4 November 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. Fenix down (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C. 8–2 Arsenal F.C.[edit]

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

This article fails both WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG Rupert1904 (talk) 13:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a WP:POINTY nomination by Rupert1904 in response to the AfD nomination of Bremer SV 0–12 FC Bayern Munich, which they started. There are plenty of sources out there to substantiate the notability of this match, many of which are already included in the article. Although no competition records were set, the magnitude of the result between two big clubs in English football is enough to make this subject notable. – PeeJay 14:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Every instance a team scores more than 5 or 6 goals in a game is not substantial enough to make it noteworthy. As the article suggests, there was no title implications on the result and this didn't change the course of history. If results between two big clubs is all that is needed, then where is the article about United's 0–5 loss to Liverpool from this past weekend? Where is Aston Villa's 7–2 romp over Liverpool? Where is Tottenham's 6–1 crushing of United last campaign? All of these matches took place between big clubs in English football and had lopsided victories. This falls into the same category of not being notable enough for its own article. Rupert1904 (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where are those articles? You tell me! The references section of this article should be enough to tell you that it is indeed notable. You're coming up with totally spurious examples to support a bad argument now. – Pee Jay 16:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question While there is WP:COVERAGE does that meet the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE for an event? I'm also unsure how this article meets WP:EFFECT. --dashiellx (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. The match was a routine league fixture. It wasn't a cup final or a title decider so it had no significant effect on football at the time and has no historical value. It could be said it is only notable for how bad Arsenal were on the day, and it could equally be said that last weekend's demolition of Man U by Liverpool is only notable for how bad Man U were in that game which hasn't got an article (yet?). The only thing that distinguishes the 2011 game from others in the PL between those two clubs is the unusually high score. The score per se is WP:TRIVIA. A match like this cannot be compared with, for example, Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (1989) which was literally a title decider and has had a long-term historical impact, its article thereby meeting NEVENT and GNG with ease. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Whether or not there is an article about Sunday's game is irrelevant. Besides, five goals in a game is not uncommon; there have been at least five goals in a Premier League match 1,510 times (out of 11,356 matches to date), and games have been won by a margin of at least five goals 225 times, whereas they have been won by a margin of at least six goals just 63 times and contained a total of at least 10 goals on only 6 occasions. But despite the rarity of this result, no one is arguing that just any game with 10+ goals and a winning margin of +6 should have an article. This one is included because of its continued and non-routine coverage ([36], [37], [38], [39], [40]). If the others can match this level of coverage 10 years on, by all means create articles for them, but don't delete this one just because you haven't looked hard enough for supporting content. – Pee Jay 20:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

***You can't use a load of statistics to try and prove a point and, frankly, I doubt if any of those five sites are at all reliable. Mention of last Sunday's match is merely an aside that can be ignored. The key points are the article fails NEVENT and the GNG because it was a routine league match with none of the significance or historical value attached to the 1989 title decider or to, for example, any FA Cup final. The only notability claim it might have is its result which, in terms of WP:EFFECT is statistical trivia and therefore fails both WP:NOSTATS and WP:TRIVIA. I agree the match should be mentioned in the Man U club article and perhaps in the Arsenal one too (if its editors will take it on the chin), but a separate article for something that had and still has no meaning beyond a freak scoreline? No way. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - - The statistics were to address your point about this game having an unusually high score. I agree with you, it does have an unusually high score, but that's not why this game has an article. Have you even read the articles I linked to? They're not from random blogs, they're from respected football websites! No one is claiming this game has the same significance as a title decider or a cup final, but it definitely meets a threshold for inclusion here. – Pee Jay 20:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that this is a POINTy nomination, but that aside, there is sufficient coverage, particularly this, which shows notability. Giant Snowman 21:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Although I agree with the proposed deletion of this article, I had not taken on board the circumstances around the Bayern match article and I now think that this nomination was raised to make a WP:POINT. On the basis of both procedure and principle, I am therefore withdrawing all comments I've made here. I think the nomination should be withdrawn. My apologies. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this is just a WP:POINTy nomination. Passes WP:GNG, as there is still coverage being generated of it, 9 years after the event e.g. [41], [42], [43]. Unlike Bayern Munich beating a fifth tier team, this was two of the top Premier League sides at the time, so was a massive shock. Which is why it still generates lots of coverage Joseph2302 (talk) 08:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and trout GNG looks satisfactory to me, has anyone got a big enough trout to whack Rupert with? Govvy (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even leaving the circumstances of the nomination aside, this was clearly a match which had lasting notability and sustained coverage. Dunarc (talk) 22:49, 28 October 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Omar al-Idlibi[edit]

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

As a WP:BLP subject involved in what he is involved in, we should only write an article on him after the war has been properly documented in high quality independent sources, and those sources find his role in it to be significant. Such sources don't seem to exist yet. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:BLP.(NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article does need to be expanded and further sources do exist. He is a prominent figure covered by press, especially within the last 2 years. There's no prohibition on articles on such people provided they are properly sourced; there are numerous others (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_of_the_Syrian_civil_war and its subcategories) including far less notable ones. Lightspecs (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read over the article, what in your opinion is he notable for? He is a defector and officer in the Syrian Democratic Forces, but what has he done that stands out above his other counterparts? Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the article are either iffy or without WP:SIGCOV, usually both. Which WP:THREE sources do you argue are BLP-reliable and have WP:SIGCOV? Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Generally regarded as one of the most important pro-PYD Arabs in Syria at the moment. Lots of Kurdish and Arab language sources talk about him. In addition, Usedtobecool's argument for deletion makes no sense; of course we can create articles on people who are involved in ongoin wars. Applodion (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we have BLP-compliant sources, we can. If we can claim that there are sources but can present none, we can't. Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as he has received significant coverage in Kurdish sourcesJackattack1597 (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he appears to have received enough coverage to pass WP:NBASIC. Sources need not be in English. And, while the argument that we should only write an article on him after the war has been properly documented in high quality independent sources would appear to hold water, this article is on the individual, not the war itself. As a result, I don't see why we have to wait for the war to conclude to write about him; if the sources on the person exist now, then we wouldn't need to wait for sources on the war writ large. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:01, 5 November 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) 04:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Louise van Oosten[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Survived a WP:TRAINWRECK. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. WP:GNG is also failed. Apart from this all I could find was routine coverage such as transfers, match reports and call ups to the Dutch youth international teams. Dougal18 (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A news search turned up two trivial mentions in game recaps, which obviously do not contribute to notability. I would also note that the source found in the nom mostly contains quotes from an interview, with essentially no secondary analysis by the author; primary sources such as interviews have historically not been considered sufficient to count towards notability. JoelleJay (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 21:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. While she currently fails our standards, she is only 17 and is with a top-level club so I think WP:TOOSOON for deletion. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @No Great Shaker: There is no professional women's league in the Netherlands. Draftifying would be making a prediction that she would either play for the Netherlands national team or transfer to a WP:FPL club in the next six months. I say six months because without editing that's when the draft is deleted. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also could find only two trivial news pieces, which are insufficient to meet WP:GNG. If more information becomes available, this article can be recreated at a later date. Avilich (talk) 01:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, doesn't look like there's any substantial sources out there (there's also none on the nl.wiki article about her, which I may have expected if good Dutch language sources existed). Joseph2302 (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet any Wikipedia guideline. Geschichte (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. W C M_email 12:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree that Van Oosten does not currently meet our notability criteria for biographies, searches show that she exists but has not garnered enough coverage that is truly in-depth Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The individual fails WP:NSOCCER, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:BASIC. There's no evidence of significant coverage of this individual, and, while there are database sources that reference her, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:38, 28 October 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 La bellissima estate. Daniel (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluca Bennati[edit]

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

I fail to see how this passes basic WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I agree with the nominator's rationale, unless of course if someone can demonstrate evidence that the character is somehow a cultural icon in Italy. As for deletion, there is a suitable merge and redirect target though, the film's article which shares the same cited sources as this article but is strangely short and lacks a plot summary. The main character's story summary can be rewritten and folded into that section. Haleth (talk) 12:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to La bellissima estate. Nothing in the article suggests notability (this is just a plot summary). I don' think there is any referenced content to merge, the two footnotes are simply used to simply confirm that the character existed in the movie. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to La bellissima estate per above. No indication that the character is independently notable of the film. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:04, 4 November 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Wheeler[edit]

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

She had a 22 episode role in the 1998 series Two of a Kind but not much after- has 11 credits total per IMDb with not many if any being significant roles and not many resources aside from a Bustle article I found. Most of the other articles are just mentions of her. Doesn’t meet WP:GNG LADY LOTUS • TALK 10:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LADY LOTUS • TALK 10:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:24, 27 October 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. Tone 15:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Archbridge Institute[edit]

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

Promotional article. Originally sourced almost entirely to a string of passing mentions in the media, or to byline credits of people associated with Archbridge - but containing no independent RS information about Archbridge. The article creator remove a PROD for bad sourcing not showing notability, and proffered cited sources that comprise an organisation affiliated with Archbridge (Atlas), a directory entry (ProPublica), the Washington Examiner (of dubious reliability per WP:RSP), an apparent blog with no visible editorial names or policy (so not a WP:NEWSORG) and the bio byline of an article by Archbridge's founder. A WP:BEFORE shows no independent third-party coverage of Archbridge in actual WP:RSes that I could find that would pass WP:CORPDEPTH. To be kept, we would need independent third-party coverage in clear RSes that was actually about Archbridge itself, per WP:CORPDEPTH. I'd be happy to be shown wrong, but it would have to be shown. David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disagree, but I did put time into the page and Archbridge Institute has been featured in multiple news stories as a purveyor of new research, so that should clear the "notability" hurdle. For example, their president and CEO interviewed the mayor of Miami, who is widely known: https://profectusmag.com/interview-with-mayor-francis-suarez/. Another example is the Washington Examiner and it's ridiculous to suggest they are "an apparent blog with no visible editorial names or policy." It's clearly a news organization. You can see their dozens of staffers, including editors, here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/staff. Similarly, you can read their editorial policies and standards here: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policies-and-standards Doctorstrange617 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No, as I said - literally in the text of the nomination - the Washington Examiner is the source listed as being of dubious notability in WP:RSP. The blog with no visible policy that you cited is The BL.

It is entirely unclear how doing an interview in your institute's house magazine makes someone worthy of a Wikipedia article.

Please detail - with reference only to solidly independent mainstream Reliable Sources, not dubious sources, blogs or in-house publications - how the Archbridge Institute meets any of the prongs of WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. I went looking for evidence and couldn't find any; if you have any to proffer, those are the criteria that Wikipedia uses.

As I said: I'd be happy to be shown wrong - but it would have to be shown - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Beyond this page, it seems like a problem that right-leaning news sources are so often considered "dubious," when comparable publications on the left side of the aisle pass muster. Do any of the news sources below clear the bar? They are all examples of the Archbridge Institute being mentioned by third-party sources. In the case of PJ Media, they seem to have featured the organization's research extensively (not just in passing): https://www.thecentersquare.com/illinois/after-1-500-hours-of-training-pritzker-speaks-to-prison-barber-school-grads/article_72ec5306-7ac1-11eb-96b0-837fe1e0118e.html https://angelusnews.com/news/world/religious-minorities-need-help-active-protection-say-advocates/ https://www.ocregister.com/2020/07/31/if-you-want-to-help-minorities-and-the-poor-get-government-out-of-the-way/ https://themreport.com/daily-dose/02-04-2020/housing-market-not-driven-by-highly-leveraged-homeowners https://americanbusinesshistory.org/business-history-podcast-and-video/ https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2021/08/05/forget-what-the-squad-says-the-american-dream-is-alive-and-well-n1467217 https://pjmedia.com/culture/tyler-o-neil/2020/05/27/people-with-a-sense-of-purpose-more-likely-to-support-capitalism-study-finds-n436665 https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/12/03/want-to-decrease-inequality-fight-fatherlessness-with-welfare-reform-n1189803 https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2019/10/15/free-market-capitalism-is-good-for-democracy-new-study-finds-n69661 Doctorstrange617 (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not right vs. left, it's sources that make stuff up or dubious-blog versus normal sane sources that pass WP:NEWSORG. e.g. I closed the recent discussion on very leftist source CounterPunch as "deprecate" because the site was posting conspiracy nonsense about 9/11, COVID and Jews, so the overwhelming consensus was that they were out. But if you're advocating a theory that there's a conspiracy against your desired sources, I should note that's unlikely to convince people in a Wikipedia discussion.

The Center Square article is a passing mention about a survey, not information on Archbridge. Passing mentions are not considered evidence of notability.

The Angelus piece names Archbridge as employing a single staff member in passing.

The OC Register article is a passing mention about a survey, not information on Archbridge.

The M report talks about an article on another site as having been written by someone from Archbridge; it should be obvious that this isn't going to be a usable source on Wikipedia for anything about Archbridge.

The American Business History link is a podcast, of one guy from Archbridge talking to another guy from Archbridge. It should be obvious that this isn't independent third party coverage.

PJMedia has very little recent discussion on WP:RSN, but I expect it would be heading for deprecation in a formal RFC on RSN, for promoting COVID conspiracy theories, election count conspiracy theories, etc - that's what's got a lot of sites deprecated of late. Basically, Wikipedia can't use sources that have a track record of that sort of fabrication. It also doesn't even pretend to be a news outlet - a huge percentage of the articles are editorial rants against corporate media and liberals, not any sort of WP:NEWSORG.

And even then, none of the PJMedia links are about Archbridge itself.

WP:CORPDEPTH - which I've linked a few times already, so I'd expect you to have read it - is pretty clear on this:

Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

It also notes:

Sources are not transferable or attributable between related parties. Sources that describe only a specific topic related to an organization should not be regarded as providing significant coverage of that organization. Therefore, for example, an article on a product recall or a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself).

so a guy from Archbridge writing an article does not connote notability for Archbridge.

Is there significant coverage of Archbridge itself in independent third-party reliable sources? - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Gerard. There is very little in terms of reliable sourcing that is actually about or focused on the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I've performed my own WP:BEFORE and have come to the same conclusion as David Gerard, this doesn't meet WP:ORGDEPTH, and I don't think it's even a particularly close call. Additionally, citing publications that refer to COVID as "the CCP Virus" in an effort to prove notability is downright hysterical. AngryHarpy‍^talk 10:29, 29 October 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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 17:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EEWeb[edit]

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

Sources are unreliable, mostly from blogs and directory listings. Fails WP:NCORP. ^Ramaswar _(discuss) 16:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't think that NCORP applies here, but I don't have enough experience to definitively say so. Here's my piece: the EE Times is related to this and is a legitimate and accredited source of journalism. EEWeb does seem to be quite popular as a forum, and seeing as it is directly related to the EE Times, I think that's why it wasn't originally deleted even though it was proposed to be deleted. Monstarules (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blogs and press releases can support information in the article but cannot be used to establish notability. There are nearly no reliable sources cited that establish notability; there should be a search for more sources and added, if any exist. Multi7001 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Monstarules said, I don't think WP:NCORP is a reason to delete this article. As mentioned, EETimes is closely related to EEWeb and they are both legitimate sources of news and journalism in the electronics industry. However, you're correct in saying that there's a lack of reliable sources and that is my fault. So, to fix this issue, I will refresh the article with reliable 3rd-party sources and references to bolster the legitimacy of this article. I'll have those prepared and update the article accordingly. Thank you for allowing discussion on this. MWatari (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP (the article is about a company, so I think this policy would apply). Also issues with source reliability, as per Multi7001. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I've cleaned up the article considerably, adding references to bolster it. Also, I've added some categories, since EEWeb is an online magazine for electronics. These 3rd-party sources should suffice.

I also noticed that in the categories of other similar online magazines, a huge number of them lack references and are effectively stubs. Some examples are: Hands-On Electronics, Modern Electronics, Electronics World to name a few. Are notability requirements different for those magazines - I only ask because those articles are standing despite a huge lack of references. In any case, I've added more references and condensed much of the text. MWatari (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Multi7001. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:34, 5 November 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) 04:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Isfahan hotels[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory. Only one notable entry already appears on List of hotels: Countries I Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can’t see how this list demonstrates notability and isn’t just a directory of local businesses. Mccapra (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the list is not notable, and Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses. Gorden 2211 (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to be a notable intersection and we're not the Yellow Pages here Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 06:48, 29 October 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) 04:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cruisin' Susan[edit]

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

No claim of notability. No independent sources. Routine service record of an aircraft. MB 06:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mztourist (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree and a quick search isn't finding more sources. Also many of the items in Category:Individual aircraft of World War II are of doubtful notability. (t · c) buidhe 08:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any aircraft that participated in a major war is inherently noteworthy from a historical standpoint, and for the sake of capturing the historical details of the war that could be forgotten or glossed over unless documented. Zacharyfruhling (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy that supports this assertion. Mztourist (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable topics and not a blog for in-depth historical minutia that is not covered by reliable sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -I see no claim to notability in the article - what is supposed to mark this aircraft out over any other? GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing particularly noteworthy about the aircraft that makes it stand out among the tens of thousands of wartime crashes. Although "successful crash landing" was an amusing description in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:52, 1 November 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) 04:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Khasan Magomedsharipov[edit]

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Fails WP:NMMA for not having at least 3 fights under the top tier promotions and fails GNG for fight records are merely routine reports. His association with Zabit Magomedsharipov (his brother) is not the criteria for stand alone page as notability is not inherited. Cassiopeia talk 05:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 05:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 05:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia talk 05:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nom .Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 13:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meets none of the criteria at WP:NMMA. Coverage is routine sports reporting and notability is not inherited. At best I would say this article was created WP:TOOSOON and requires a WP:CRYSTALBALL since he currently has no top tier fights. Papaursa (talk) 01:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFC It's too early for mainspace. Doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Also need more WP:NWSRC. AriaTess (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
:Comment Subject has meet NMMA or GNG, no point or reason to move to draft for he is not close to meet notability requirements. When the subject is notable which would be a few years from now and only if he fights for top tier promotion for at least 3 fights (so many variable and if here) then the article can be recreated. Cassiopeia talk 09:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I accepted the draft, but I didn't realize that WP:NMMA existed. SL93 (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He's just starting his career. He needs a few more fights in Bellator starting from next year. Once he's got a few more fights, he can fit the three Tier 1 fights requirement of WP:MMANOT. Hopefully then we can bring this article back.-Imcdc (talk) 17:04, 1 November 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. Nominator withdrawal, no deletion contributions (per WP:CSK). (non-admin closure) Goldsztajn (talk) 02:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seed-counting machine[edit]

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

This orphan article has no citations, and is mainly used as a repository for external links to seed-packing equipment manufacturer websites. I haven't been able to locate another article which would appropriately house this content (for a merge) as there seems to be no article mentioning seed-counting or seed-packages. Nor is there any article which would even link to this article in their See also section. Though there is the article Seed, it doesn't really go into the subject of commercial packaging and selling. Doesn't look salvageable at this point. Platonk (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - I withdraw my nomination since a group of 5 editors has effectively TNTed the old article and rebuilt it over the last 24 hours; a wonderful effort and a great result. Anyone who wants to close this AfD with a speedy keep, go right ahead. Platonk (talk) 07:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To feed the planet and plant the trillions of trees needed to rebalance the climate, lots of seeds have to be counted. Experts discuss this activity in works such as Measuring Seed Velocity and Seed Counting in a Pneumatic Conveying System using Electrostatic Sensors; A semi-automatic seed counter and Cereal Grains – Laboratory Reference and Procedures Manual. Policy WP:ATD therefore applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 08:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for getting pages fixed up to keep. Please go ahead and make your improvements (nice pic you already added) and we'll see if we can get this to 'notability' standards. I suspect that Wikipedia needs more coverage of the commercial seed industry. I was unable to find any. Platonk (talk) 08:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For information about seeds in an encyclopedic format, see The Encyclopedia of Seeds. It has 828 pages and so seems quite comprehensive. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When was the first seed counting machine made? The Library of Congress has this image https://www.loc.gov/resource/fsa.8d16046/ from 1943. Should be more information about this notable invention somewhere. Googling "Seed counting machine" site:.gov OR site:.edu OR site:.org [44] gets some results to sort through. Dream Focus 11:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good find, thanks. The picture was taken at the W. Atlee Burpee Company but seems to be the work of the War Office and so is PD. I'll get it loaded. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added the various types to the article. Seed counter can be search for as well as seed counting machine. Adding in the word "history" didn't find any specific information yet. I guess the patent office's website would show when each type was invented. Seems like there would be a textbook for this industry listing this information. Dream Focus 11:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added your new-found image to Burpee Seeds and Plants. Platonk (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia isn't just for popular culture items that get ample media attention, but is also a real encyclopedia. Seed counting machines have been significant in the agricultural industry, so an article for them is justified. Dream Focus 15:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I checked newsprint and came across these mentions, like this article that was reprinted and published widely. Or this one that I clipped simply because of the illustration. Meanwhile, I just made a few, links, added cats, and relevant see also. Lightburst (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This makes my back hurt. Lightburst (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they're pretty easy to use. The hardest part is keeping up with the horse(s) while walking over freshly turned ground. Platonk (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here is another that is in depth about a seed counter. Can anyone here integrate this? or this. Lightburst (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done integrated into history. Lightburst (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no problem with the sourcing on this article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Article has been substantially improved, which is a collateral benefit of AFD, I guess. ~~Of course, the folks who proposed this could have helped improve it too.~~ There are still more sources, which apparently have been overlooked. But that is a personal decision, kind of like getting a vaccine, I suppose. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:26, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@7&6=thirteen: Hey! Platonk (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I missed some of those edits. I certainly thank all of those editors who have contributed to the improvement of the article. And I commend the original AFD nominator for having the courage to withdraw the nomination. That is rare beavior. These AFD conversations become needlessly and negatively positional. Article improvement is a legitimate goal. Thank you for permitting me to clarify what I should have said in the first place. I'm sorry for my remark. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Nominator withdrew the AFD. Not the article is was when nominated for deletion. WP:HEY. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:00, 30 October 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) 04:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crowther Lab[edit]

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

This is a promotional duplication of the article on Thomas Crowther (ecologist), an article on a notable scientist that has some similar promotional problems that I am in the process of fixing.

All notable laboratory scientists in universities , run laboratories composed of a number of post-docs, grad students, technicians, usually undergraduates., and sometimes junior faculty. The work coming from the lab is normally funded by the research grants awarded to the faculty member as chief investigator, with often some institutional funds as well, and the faculty member is considered to have the responsibility of seeing that the work done is of high quality, and consequently competes with other faculty in the field for the best new postdocs and grad students. They may put their name on all the articles, some of the articles, or none of them--this is a matter of individual choice as well as convention in the field.

There is normally no sense in which the work of the lab is independent of the faculty sponsor; the content of any article on the lab would have extensive overlap with the article on the scientist--as an indication, the bios of many scientists contain phrases such as "she and her associates" did whatever.

If we allowed articles such as this, we would essentially have two articles on every notable scientist. Of course, there will be some few very exceptional scientists known as much for running a laboratory for others to work as for their own work, were it might be justified. and there might be justification for articles on particularly notable multi-lead investigator groups. In each of these cases, there will be extensive secondary literature about the laboratory as such. That's not the case here. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK I see - sorry for wasting time - I am not an academic so I did not understand that is how they work. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the well-reasoned argument of the nominator about this being redundant with the article on Crowther himself, but also per WP:NORG: we don't apply standards for notability of academic biographies to labs, because they are not biographies, and we don't have the multiple in-depth reliable non-routine-coverage secondary sources demanded by our standards of notability for organizations. Sources about individual research projects conducted in the lab are not sources about the lab. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like someone building a mirror of the typical university web page for a lab, but on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 07:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Wikipedia is not an extension of an institutions webpages. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteas per nom.Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 13:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom above. --WomenProj (talk) 22:41, 31 October 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) 04:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Inverness Athletic F.C. Seasons[edit]

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

This is an old orphan article from 2019, it is a duplicate of information found in Inverness Athletic F.C., was copied there on 21 December 2019, but no one ever deleted the prior article stub. No longer needed. Platonk (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:43, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already at Inverness_Athletic_Football_Club#Seasons, not long enough to split out into its own article. Dream Focus 04:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already present in club article, and absolutely no justification for a breakout "list of seasons" article for a club which has only existed for five years..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary duplicate. Number 5 7 12:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as unnecessary. The table in the article is sufficient. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 18:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As stated above it is unnecessary duplication and the seasons of a team that has never played above the North Caledonian League are not going to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article unless there are some extraordinary circumstances. Dunarc (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-necessary duplicate. Unnecessary fork. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:54, 27 October 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 Akin, Illinois. Tone 15:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akin Junction, Illinois[edit]

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

Railroad junction does not meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 04:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see articles from the 20s and 30s and 50s - looks like they expected to build a community there. But it is discussed over a course of decades in Illinois newsprint. 1, 2, 3 Lightburst (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still purely a rail junction with no signs of notability. Hypothetical growth could be mentioned at Akin, Illinois. Reywas92^Talk 15:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
delete There's no hypothetical growth: one of the news stories is about constructing the line that made this a junction, and the other two are about later improvements to the same lines. None of it is about a settlement, real or hoped for, and all the coverage is very local. All evidence is that it is and always was the isolated rail junction which it remains today. Mangoe (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mangoe: from the first article above - Here:

Akin Junction, which is expected to develop into a new city of great proportions and possibilities will be the intersections of sections 9, 10, 15 and 16 Eastern Township, on land owned by Dema Summers

Lightburst (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Akin, Illinois, or if they seem too far from each other for the junction to be in scope for the settlement, then to Eastern Township, Franklin County, Illinois. There is only one WP:SIGCOV source in all those cited by Lightburst and cited by the article itself, and that is effectively local coverage: Lightburst's link 1 is "Benton Says I.C. Blueprints on Cut-Off Filed". Carbondale Free Press. Carbondale, Illinois. 1924-10-03. p. 1., citing the Benton Evening News. Akin Junction is arguably one of the primary topics of that article. But it's now been 97 years since the then-future junction was "expected to develop into a new city of great proportions and possibilities". (For what it's worth, new railroad lines often came with breathless media chatter of a metropolis being inevitable at some point on the line. Many of those claims were planted by land-trading speculators. I don't know if that is the case here. In any case, allegedly-imminent boomtowns on rail lines or favorable terrain were the 19th/early-20th century equivalent of WP:MYSPACEBAND.) --Closeapple (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Akin, Illinois. The junction is named after the community and is less than a mile away, appropriate to cover it here. A railroad article would be a better choice, but Illinois Central Railroad does not get into such detail. MB 04:16, 1 November 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 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valeria Gutiérrez[edit]

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

Fails against WP:BLP1E policy as an individual known for one event, in this case one beauty pageant. There is no inherent notability attached to any pageant. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing.

Logs: 2021-10 ✍️ create

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Author appears to contest AFD, not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a actor, just a person who attended a beauty contest. May be an actor at some point in the future, but not now. scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. If she wins the contest, she may be notable in the future, but for now delete. Minkai^(rawr!)_{(see where I screwed up)} 17:42, 30 October 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. Tone 15:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Tunisia[edit]

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

Only three sources in this article mention "Operation Tunisia," 1. a possible unreliable website named My Consumer Electronics, 2. a blog, and 3. a video on youtube that is not confirmed to be from Anonymous. If not deleted, the article should be renamed. Not notable. PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tunisia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:47, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be the focus of in-depth coverage e.g. this 2015 book chapter. A JSTOR search pulls up mention in several other academic books as well. That first one is the only open access one sadly, but I'm happy to send along copies to anyone interested (maybe included in the WP Library access?). Seems like this has attracted sufficient enduring coverage to meet WP:GNG. Ajpolino (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Ajpolino that the scholarly sources contribute to notability, and there are several reliable sources already in the article that clearly are discussing this incident in depth, even if they don't use the term "Operation Tunisia". If renaming is necessary (and I'm skeptical), that can be dealt with through WP:RM, but deletion is unnecessary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:20, 28 October 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Child Welfare Board[edit]

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

Says nearly nothing except that this is a government entity that exists. "Child Welfare Boards" are not a unique entity to New York, either; a quick search shows that they exist in Ohio, Texas, and Louisiana, and possibly other states. It's also not clear how it relates to present-day social services in the city or state, since the only citation is from 1915. Apocheir (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Apocheir (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge existing content to Government of New York (state), then delete. I looked to see if there was a more general children welfare article pertaining to the US but it seems child protection is the closest one so a redirect does not seem favorable. – The Grid (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no point in a merger. As noted in the article, there was one per county mandated in 1915. A search through Newspapers.com shows surprisingly little on New York City's, and the newspaper stories mainly are picayune. This article was not well thought-out and I suggest to the author that they consider perhaps a differently framed article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. As the nominator said, Child Welfare Boards are not exclusive to New York, which this article solely focuses on. If an article were to be created under this title, then it should cover child welfare boards in general. The TNT tipping point is if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. I don't think there's anything encyclopedic worth WP:PRESERVEing here, even as a merger. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Qwaiiplayer. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Colonestarrice (talk) 21:37, 5 November 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. Tone 15:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Centennial Airport mid-air collision[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. This incident involved two small planes with only three people onboard both in total, nothing truly substantial. The news coverage on this appears to have dropped after a week or so. For a midair collision that resulted in no fatalities whatsoever, I'm not seeing any persistent national news coverage on this, nor did I even see anything about this in the news on the day it happened. Overall, this event was just a blip on the radar and nothing more. Love of Corey (talk) 03:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Love of Corey: I'm reading the four criteria in WP:NOTNEWS, which one do you think applies here and why? - Scarpy (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second one. Love of Corey (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm completely not following. It's saying newsworthiness does not necessarily imply notability. You're saying this wasn't newsworthy (e.g. was not on the news the day it happened), so it shouldn't be notable. That's reversing that guideline. Notable events may or may not be newsworthy, so we should pay less attention to the newsworthiness and more attention to the the general notability qualities (like we always do) of the WP:RS describing the event, which is what the guideline says. - Scarpy (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The Swearingen Metroliner is technically a large aircraft with a gross weight of 14,000+ lbs, it was substantially damaged, and it was being operated by a Part 135 certified commercial air carrier; in short, this accident badly damaged a commercial airliner. Per community consensus at WP:AV, these are qualifying criteria for a standalone article. Carguychris (talk) 14:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Key Lime Air aircraft and was severely damaged and the despite that fact, the plane was able to land is very rare. The media reports are mentioning the incident left right and center too. Easy keep. KlientNo.1 (talk) 05:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - false rationale given for nomination. The was not a collsion between two small (i.e. GA) aircraft, but between an airliner and an GA aircraft, which is much higher up the notability ladder. A lack of deaths ≠ a lack of notability. Mjroots (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination is a logical non-sequitur, see above discussion. - Scarpy (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very famous event, and Wikipedia not News 223.136.218.98 (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Swearingen Metroliner might've not had passengers, but it is a passenger airliner. A mid-air collision where everybody survived is a rare occurence, and there's a fair amount of coverage on it.Gorden 2211 (talk) 06:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an usual event (mid-air collision) involving an airliner is worth an article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted WP:NOTNEWS, not all airliners famous, these two jets were small, and all occupants survived also not a rare thing.111.71.213.252 (talk) 03:17, 2 November 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) 00:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus Communications[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Company does not meet WP:NCORP- coverage consists of non-independent sources (e.g. interview-based articles) and WP:PASSING mentions. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - interviews are not always non-independent and a source being in interview format does not make it an unreliable source, in fact interviews are common journalistic practice and have been since the invention of the printing press. That the sources currently in the article might need some expanding upon is not a reason for deletion, and a quick Google search shows there are plenty of potential sources that haven't yet made it into the article. Beyond coverage, the company's work is cited in a range of well-regarded publications and multiple members of the company's corporate and scientific leadership teams are cited as experts and have received coverage in their own right. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifically in relation to NCORP, that's not accurate (other guidelines may be difference). Interviews are always non-independent because it is the company (or somebody affiliated with the company) providing the information - *but* if, for example, the article doesn't rely entirely on the interview content and the journalist/author provides their own opinion/analysis/etc then the article *may* meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's is nothing to support the claim that, "Interviews are always non-independent". That simply isn't how interviews work. Interviews are a normal part of journalistic practice. The suggestion that the format somehow changes only in relation to reporting on corporations, and then so significantly that they should be considered in a completely different way, is illogical. The mental gymnastics required to justify that position is proof enough that WP:NCORP is either wrong, or its being applied incorrectly. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - If an executive or affiliated person is being interviewed and provides information about the company, that is always non-independent. Not just from an NCORP POV, but it is a Primary source. There's no mental gymnastics required for this view. Your position - that we don't require a third party to provide in-depth "Independent Content" - is not supported by NCORP. You have your own opinion - fine - take it to NCORP and argue to change the guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What we are looking at is WP:CORPDEPTH. Notability is not inherited so scientists and leaders getting covered won't directly translate to company's notability. I know that debating WP:CORPDEPTH is painful enough already. To debate that it does pass WP:CORPDEPTH, best would be provide verbatim examples from the sources. And then we can look if the source is also independent and reliable to count it as one of WP:THREE. No prejudices against folks voting keep since there can be multiple view points to it. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 01:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance has nothing to do with it; the company's work is considered significant enough (and those responsible for it, expert enough) that it is cited by others. In much the same way as researchers and academics are cited for their contributions. Coverage like this includes quotes from an executive (like any other news article would) while still giving significant coverage to the company itself. This article suggests the author spoke to the CEO of Cactus but he is barely quoted (if at all?) and the article provides detailed coverage of the company while interspersed with citations of other supporting research. This article is perhaps less useful as it quotes someone who worked at Cactus, but the person who wrote it is still independent and the source is still reliable. And these are in addition to the routine corporate announcements and whatever might be available that hasn't been included in the article yet. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The livemint article is a standard "profile" or puff-piece article where all of the information is provided by the company. Typically has a standard format too - history, problem, aha moment, early success, funding, current description/offering/fantabulous prospects, glowing future. Oh and a photo of the founders. So it might contain significant in-depth information but it still fails WP:ORGIND because it has no "Independent Content". The OpenAccessGovernment article does more than "suggest" the author spoke to the CEO, the main headline suggests he wrote the article. Which explains the sentence "Building on our reputation as one of The Best Remote Companies in 2020, CACTUS recently introduced Amber". So that also fails WP:ORGIND. And finally the Nature article is a mention-in-passing which provides zero in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies entirely on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article or mentioned in this AfD meet the criteria. They are either puff pieces or articles that rely entirely on information provided by the company or affiliated people. All of the articles I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every article ever written for a newspaper that quotes a source more familiar with the subject than the journalist is written the same way; pick any New York Times or Washington Post article. What you're suggesting is that if the subject of a newspaper article is a company, rather than an individual or event, then journalistic practice has gone out the window and somehow the journalist in question is a paid corporate shill because - like any other article they write - they have asked the subject of the article for information or a quote. That's just plain nonsensical. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, yes. NCORP applies a stricter application of the requirement for multiple unconnected sources providing in-depth "Independent Content". Other guidelines, such as WP:BIO for example, take a less strict approach. If the newspaper article relies entirely on the information provided by the company or connected individuals without providing their own opinion/analysis/etc then what you've got is information from a PRIMARY source. If you've an issue with NCORP and its application, take it to the NCORP Talk page. If your argument that it is all "nonsensical" holds up, great. As I've said to you on multiple occasions in the past, I don't care what's in the guidelines, I'll help to implement whatever is in there. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and HighKing's observations. -Hatchens (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This fails WP:CORPDEPTH, as noted above. Those interviews might show that the executives or the individuals people could be notable, but the company itself doesn't inherit notability from its executives saying things about it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:03, 5 November 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 03:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Gates-Stuart[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF as an academic. This article was created by a single purpose editor with the same surname. Gnews gives 4 hits but lacking indepth coverage of her as the subject. Almost an orphan article with Canberra the only article linking to this. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom said, doesn't seem to meet WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 05:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Regrettably delete, due to inadequate independent coverage, and not meeting WP:NPROF. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 30 October 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 03:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Forest Is My Throne / Yggdrasill[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:MUSIC. Non-notable album. SL93 (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:NALBUM. ––FormalDude talk 07:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am familiar with the discographies of these two bands. They both recorded early demos under the titles seen here, which are themselves non-notable, and this item combines the two for what I believe was a fanclub or promo-only release. The combined split album is itself non-notable. Brief mentions of the individual early demos at each band's article are sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 05:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NALBUM per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 00:48, 3 November 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Botswana–Spain relations[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This article is largely based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The article even admits the relations are very little "low presence of Spaniards in the country, little relevant bilateral trade, and reduced number of trips and high-level visits" and "There are no Spanish development cooperation programs or projects with Botswana" LibStar (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless this particular diplomatic relationship has received significant coverage in reliable sources, our article that asserts there is a notable relationship is pure original research. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 05:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 28 October 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Dijkhuis[edit]

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

I cannot find enough information to turn this into an acceptable article. The article currently does not use reliable sources. This artist does not meet WP:NARTIST. She has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, or won significant critical attention, or been represented within the permanent collections of any notable galleries or museums. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:31, 27 October 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 03:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sudeepto Salam[edit]

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

Non notable journalist. The article contain full of primary sources (from book selling website). I googled in Bangla and English but didn't find any significant coverage, in other word there is zero significant coverage about this person. The person didn't won any major award or anything similar. Fails WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 01:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:31, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Feels self written, looks strongly WP:COI, all sources seem primary and there are no secondary sources, big red flag. I expect the user account that created the article was created just to create this article. Probably should be blocked. Govvy (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a deleted COI declaration here for those who can read it. Certes (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 05:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a draft for this article has been deleted twice before [45] under speedy deletion criterion G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. This is still nnambiguous self-promotion, in violation of our policy on what Wikipedia is not. Vexations (talk) 14:24, 30 October 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 03:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filmstock Film Festival[edit]

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

Article about a possibly defunct film festival, not properly referenced as passing our notability criteria for film festivals. This is referenced entirely to deadlinked primary sources that are not support for notability at all (a tourist information guide and its own self-published website about itself) with absolutely no evidence of media coverage about it shown at all, but on a Google News search all I'm getting is a couple of irrelevant hits for a same-named film festival in Luton, England, while the American festival that's described here only turns up social networking hits and directory entries that aren't support for notability at all. I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access than I've got to archived Southwestern US news coverage that might not have Googled can find enough to salvage this -- but in the current form the sourcing doesn't cut it, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to cut it. Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There do not appear to be significant sources that exist in order for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. I'm a local of the American Mountain West region (I've actually lived in three of the five states that this festivalal is supposed to be in) and the only coverage I could find was still not enough to pass WP:GNG. The only existing secondary coverage is trivial mentions. ––FormalDude talk 05:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After searching I could not find much of anything about this specific film festival in the Southwest; it's unclear from the article if the festival was founded in 2009 or 2011. I did however find a long-running filmfest with the same name that is based in the UK, but I do not think there is any correlation between the two. Does not meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. If citations can be found, or if it's part of a larger film constituency that is notable, I'm willing to rethink my !vote, but for now, it does not meet criteria for inclusion. Netherzone (talk) 13:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did find one in-depth news article about the festival in The State Press [46] and added it to the article. Netherzone (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 05:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Geschichte. ––FormalDude talk 04:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maniik is now blocked as a sock. Sock !vote struck. Java Hurricane 06:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails each criteria for WP:NFF. First of all, there are no independent sources (every source is 99% chance promotional). Second of all. Second of all, there has been no publicity about the festival at all, with the exception of a single review. Koridas ^(Heyyyyyyy) 00:57, 29 October 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 03:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nauru–Spain relations[edit]

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

Relations are almost non existent. Even the article admits "bilateral relations are very weak" and "Visitor exchanges are non-existent". The whole article seems based on the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There are no third party sources. LibStar (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No independent secondary coverage, does not pass WP:GNG. ––FormalDude talk 07:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless this particular diplomatic relationship has received significant coverage in reliable sources, our article that asserts there is a notable relationship is pure original research. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:10, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom. Best Regards.---✨Lazy Maniik✨ 05:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user Lazy Maniik. ✗plicit 14:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Within 9 minutes the above user copy-pasted either "keep as above" or "delete per nom" on 10 AFDs, clearly disruptive editing in my opinion. I think the comment should be disregarded. The user is welcome to return to make actual comments. Geschichte (talk) 08:09, 28 October 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.