< July 28	July 30 >

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. Fails notabily guidelines Less Unless (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Haul, Delaware[edit]

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

An exercise in bad map-reading on the part of the GNIS compilers, as the topos clearly show this to be a sort of swampy area on the water's edge, whose label is consistently in the wrong font for a settlement. I'd actually love to know what it was— perhaps a manor?— but I could find nothing that explained it at all. Mangoe (talk) 23:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 01:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Talk 01:44, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not entirely sure what this was, either. There's literally no newspapers.com hits for "Israel Haul" in Delaware, which isn't something you see often. I can turn up a 1966 Geological Bulletin calling it a "locality" and a 1990 government document listing "Israel Haul (marsh)" in a list of features in a proposed area for the Delaware National Estuarine Reserve. Everything else is just clickbait, scanner errors, or the words Israel and haul appearing consecutively. I guess it's a marsh, but this is definitely non-notable. Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing definitive in JStor, GBooks, GScholar, Bing, newspapers.com. In the historical topos, it first appears in the 1948 1:24,000 Frankford, DE topo. Previous topos are of a larger scale. My WP:OR theory is that it is a portage of some sort between two bodies of water or somehow associated with nearby Israel Point. I tried looking for Israel Point as well and found nothing of note. Another place to look is that searching GNIS for "Haul" in Delaware finds Millsboro which has a variant of Rock Haul that cites "Alotta, Robert I. Signposts and Settlers : The History of Place Names in the Middle Atlantic States. 31-Dec-1992. Chicago : Bonus Books." I found no evidence Israel Haul was ever a populated place, never mind as to whether this is notable populated place. This is possibly the least notable AfD I've ever researched. As this location is not legally recognized and has no coverage other than items derived from GNIS, it fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Another GNIS-fail -- Otr500 (talk) 02:35, 2 August 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. Daniel (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Divas of Colour International Women's Awards[edit]

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

This misnamed article, about a diversity organization and an award show it hosts, isn't supported by reliable sources. The info that is there now is just primary sources, press releases and blog posts either from a pr agency apparently hired by the organizers, or by the organizer herself. A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything suggesting notability. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 08:46, 30 July 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. Daniel (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bezos[edit]

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)).

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

Not notable. What independent coverage exists is all in connection to his brother (WP:INVALIDBIO/WP:NOTINHERITED), and mostly about their recent spaceflight (WP:BLP1E/WP:NOTNEWS), so it should probably be redirected to one of those articles. – Joe (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 12:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is clearly notable now that they are a pioneering astronaut. Any profile of him is clearly going to mention his famous brother too but that's unavoidable and so is not a reason to delete. The nomination does not seem to have done any WP:BEFORE and additional detailed sources seem easy to find such as this extensive profile in the Evening Standard – familiar to me as a major London newspaper. This demonstrates international detailed coverage – an easy pass of WP:BASIC. See WP:ATD, WP:NEXIST and WP:DINC. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a big difference between sources mentioning his famous brother, and sources consistently being titled "Jeff Bezos' brother..." – often not even mentioning Mark Bezos by name. The ES source, like the rest, are just passing news coverage of the single event Mark Bezos is known for, newsworthy only because of his brother. "Pioneering astronaut" is a matter of opinion, but with our upper atmosphere rapidly filling up with the ultra-rich, I don't think we can say that tagging along with one of them is a guarantee that more substantial sources will materialise in future. The very thin biographical details in this article could easily be covered in, for example, Jeff Bezos#Family or Blue Origin NS-16#Crew. – Joe (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Standard's headline starts "Mark Bezos:" and it is very clear that he is the subject. The profile is quite lengthy and detailed, as these things go, and is an excellent biographical source – much better than we get for numerous other BLPs. So, we already have adequate sources to demonstrate notability per WP:BASIC. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Full of rich biographical details like When Mark interviewed Jeff on stage at a Summit leadership event in 2017, they exhibited a similar dress sense, both wearing blue jeans, leather shoes and tight, dark polo shirts, you mean? Or that he has an expensive house and is a volunteer fireman? This is flimsy, bootlicking gossip pages stuff, not in-depth coverage of a figure with enduring notability. – Joe (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A few arguments (and questions) from the original creator, on the outside visible just via the dynamic 37.48.50.33, on the inside a contributor who has been on Wikipedia for more than 14 years (which, of course, doesn't mean that I own the truth :) )
- This was the first Blue Origin suborbital spaceflight with humans aboard. I'd say that is notable in itself - in a natural way. Were it a 6,754th flight, I'd probably ignore the event. But this was the first one. If we deleted, the readers would have some hard time to find out more details about the ship's crew. Propelled by sheer curiosity, I went to the English wiki a short while after the landing for more info about the members, failing at no entry for Mark Bezos. I was in fact wondering that the English variant had not existed before the flight took place. Was Mark Bezos for some reason ignored by the mainstream media before the event?
- If deleted, the category pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_who_have_flown_in_suborbital_spaceflight and especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:New_Shepard_astronauts will appear a bit ... incomplete.
- If deleted, Mark Bezos will remain notable and listed on
  - https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Bezos
  - https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BE%D1%81,_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BA
  - other mutations where I expect sb will create the MB entries sooner or later? Shouldn't notability be harmonized for <any>.wikipedia.org?
- From a purely formal view, suggesting to delete it would in my case contradict the intention to create the article stub. – 37.48.50.33 (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As stated by Andrew Davidson above, "any profile of him is clearly going to mention his famous brother too." Analyzing this based on WP:NOTINHERITED, we need to determine if he is being mentioned in press about his brother or if his brother is being mentioned in press about him. Mark would meet WP:GNG as there is significant coverage ABOUT HIM that mentions Jeff, not just significant coverage ABOUT JEFF that mentions him. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete (I PRODed the article shortly after creation on much the same grounds as this nominator. It was then BOLDly redirected to Blue Origin NS-16 and then restored to a separate article.) Although there is some decent coverage of Mark as a consequence of this flight, I still think this is precisely the sort of article designed to be captured by WP:ONEEVENT. I cannot see that he had any notability before it, nor have I been able to find any real pre-event SIGCOV (this article is all I could find, which seems more like a puff piece for a TED talk). When it comes to this event, his only contribution was as a passenger, a status derived from being related to the person who paid for it - he didn't come up with the idea, or do anything other than sit there whilst it happened. If you compare that to the examples in ONEEVENT it's hard to justify a standalone article. In summary, I can't see any notability outside this ONEEVENT and his contribution to the ONEEVENT was not significant enough to justify an article. Put it this way: I don't feel as though the encyclopaedia would lose anything at all if, instead of this page, there was simply a short paragraph at Blue Origin NS-16 explaining the background of the various passengers. That said, it is a decently sourced article, and it's not doing any damage, so it's a policy-based delete rather than a deeply-principled one. ninety:one 11:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That Mark Bezos is a non-astronaut in space is meaningful, and there will undoubtably need for this page in the future. Beelteboom (talk) 19:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:1E: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Being one of four on that crew would be significant enough, in my opinion, even if he weren't Jeff Bezos' brother. He has - by completing the flight - qualified as a commercial astronaut, a distinction held by only 7 people at present. Being one of eight (or eleven if you include the entire crew of this flight) to achieve that status would, separately, be significant enough in my opinion. Whether we like it or not, (and regardless of how he got there; one of the others bought his place at auction) he will be considered a pioneer of commercial space flight. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the arguments above. He even had some level of notability before the space flight with a Ted talk and some other minor coverage. Of course most sources will emphasise the fact that his brother is the richest man in the world but this doesn't prevent him being notable. Not sure why consensus has not already been called for this one considering the above discussion. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First flight on New Shepard. Besides he is milionaire.--Alex Blokha (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly his position on the flight is notable. Even if he is not as trained as Apollo 11 crews, he is an astronaut. In few decades people flying into space won't be notable as more commercial space flights open up, but for now it is very notable. SunDawn talk 11:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he is only notable for being a passenger on the NS-16 flight and being Jeff Bezos' brother, he is not notable enough to have an article devoted to him. If there are other things which make him notable, then that might be different. But being related to someone and flying on a rocket does not seem to be sufficient. And the NS-16 rocket flight itself is of questionable historical notability. Fcrary (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above, specifically in terms of WP:1E. Mbdfar (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above, and especially first crew of a new spacecraft. Hektor (talk) 20:56, 1 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Hill, Delaware[edit]

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

Another non-spot in southern Delaware. There's one reference to a Dublin Hill Farms incorporation, and one reference to it as named after the Irish capital, but everything else is real estate and lists of place names, and the usual clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per the other nominations, and honestly, having taken a glance at some of the unincorporated communities in Template:Sussex County, Delaware, you can probably do batch nomination at this point. Curbon7 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Geographical location listed in the GNIS. Per WP:5P, Wikipedia is a gazetteer and geographical places are notable. Dough4872 22:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Dough4872, WP:GEOLAND covers this. The Google street view shows houses, which means people actually live in this non-location location; however, it does not meet criterion 2 of GEOLAND ("Populated places without legal recognition") as it does not meet WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This in interesting. It states Dublin Hill is not a town, village, post-office or way-station on a rail line ... Essentially, it's two short paragraphs saying that Dublin Hill is an unofficial rural neighborhood. 11 sentences here, it's essentially a tiny hill that may be the highest point in the local area. Gonna say delete on this one, although please ping me if better sourcing that what me and the nominator turned up, I don't think it can be argued that this meets GEOLAND. Searched in a few county histories on google books and this didn't even get mentions in county histories. A short piece in a local newspaper about a small hill that doesn't mention this being a community and a very short piece that says this isn't an official community aren't enough to meet GNG or WP:GEOLAND. Contrary to the keep !vote above's claim, appearances in GNIS do not give automatic notability, and GEOLAND #2 requires unofficial neighborhoods to meet GNG, and the best source I can find about this seems to indicate that this is an unofficial neighborhood. Hog Farm _Talk 22:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Above comment is wrong, in no way, shape or form is anything in the WP:GNIS automatically notable. No indication that this is significant coverage about this neighborhood. Reywas92^Talk 14:18, 30 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Július Šupler[edit]

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

I couldn't find sources to establish he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been in CAT:NN for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm as cognizant of any of the disgrace that's the CAT:NN backlog, but the subject certainly meets WP:NHOCKEY both from his playing and coaching careers (never mind as the first non-Russian head coach of Central Red Army). I can't imagine that as head coach both of CSKA and the Slovakian national team that there aren't Russian- and Slovakian-language sources. Ravenswing 10:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
keep I agree with Ravenswing. Masterhatch (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passed both WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Ample citations could be added from the Russian Wiki article. Flibirigit (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was the head hockey coach of the Slovak national team and CSKA Moscow. The current article is poorly written and doesn't have good inline sourcing, but the existing sources verify that (and also are enough for GNG). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, coach on a very high level, and prolific. Geschichte (talk) 19:49, 1 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard C. Caesar[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. This person was one of the 922 pilots of the Tuskegee Airmen, and the sources listed to support notability are mostly blogs and an obituary from a funeral home. The only reliable secondary sources with biographical details cited in the article are this, where there are five sentences about him, and this, where there are two sentences. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC as detailed in nom. Just being a Tuskegee Airman does not establish notability. Based on the sources provided it seems his first wife was more notable than him. Mztourist (talk) 08:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much all of the reliable sources are mentions of the subject's wife. As was the case with many of the articles for WWII members of E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Rader, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dewitt Lowrey), passing mentions and being a member of a well known unit does not equal notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Just not seeing enough about the subject on his own. Intothat darkness 13:48, 1 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National Water Life Saving Association Republic of China[edit]

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

Unreferenced article; I couldn't establish notability. Boleyn (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found an English-language newspaper article and a Chinese-language master's thesis that ought to establish notability. This article discusses the teaching activities related to swimming and lifesaving of a Taiwanese couple who are the heads of the Chinese Taipei Water Life Saving Association and the association’s Taipei City Eastern Area branch. respectively. This master's thesis isn't online, but from the metadata shown, I think it is likely to have a lot of information on the association, since you couldn't write a history of lifesaving in Taiwan without giving appropriate coverage to the association's work. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources found by Eastmain, which is enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I also found this brief entry in a book. Cunard (talk) 11:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Eastmain. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 10:54, 31 July 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. Geschichte (talk) 19:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Olsen (filmmaker)[edit]

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

Delete There's only one source. This source may not be reliable. Fails WP:FILMMAKER. Hayleez (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Nominator clearly didn't do a WP:BEFORE check. Look at the amount of seemingly reliable sources on the Danish Wikipedia page, and Olsen's Worldcat entry shows that there are multiple books focused on him. Curbon7 (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. It is understandable why a review of online, English-language sources would suggest that the individual does not meet GNG, given that the worked mainly in Denmark and passed almost a century ago, but as noted by Curbon7 there are a huge amount of sources available offline and in Danish, as can be seen in the Danish version of the article. BilledMammal (talk) 03:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable (though perhaps more as a businessman than as a creative professional), and several high-quality sources exist (in Danish, at least) for expanding the article. Hqb (talk) 08:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep for the reasons above. Editors should WP:Assume Good Faith on offline, and non-English language sources especially when they are numerous and apparently reliable. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Kaffe42 (talk) 12:14, 1 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Ellis (actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 10:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As it is, it looks like a pretty worthless, unsourced stub. Non-notable actor with no evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. BexBlack314 (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the presented sources do not show notability. He is an actor in bunch of short films and doesnt meet WP:NACTOR. Peter303x (talk) 21:59, 2 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Kansas City Hospital[edit]

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

Only claim to notability seems to be that it was sued. Boleyn (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 10:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 10:03, 30 July 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. New citations for verification found. (non-admin closure) WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 17:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Blackburn Twins[edit]

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

Article for a non-notable entertainer duo with no references, fails WP:BIO. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 21:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 10:05, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did the nominator do WP:BEFORE? http://www.rubinmemorial.com/obituary/5943359 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Eastmain: Before nomination I searched for any sources that could be added to the article, but couldn't find any other reliable sources to add, and mainly just came across forum discussions and blogs. If anyone comes across any useful reliable sources that I didn't find, I suppose I could close the discussion. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 00:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WaddlesJP13: Maybe consider that (?) Djflem (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per
Jeanine Basinger, Jeanine Basinger (2019), The Movie Musical!, Knopf Doubleday, ISBN 9781101874073, ... the Blackburn Twins were popular dancers who appeared in several first-rate muscials. They were good-looking, able to do tap, a little ballet, and modern dance with great exurberance and real skill.
Lentz III, Harris M. (2018), Lentz’s Performing Arts Obituaries (2018), vol. 25, McFarland, ISBN 9781476636559
Gehman, Betsy Holland (1965), Twins: Twice the Trouble, Twice the Fun, Lippincott, p. 92, Known as The Blackburn Twins , these young fellows appeared in a number of M.G.M. ...
"Royce Perez Blackburn; of Blackburn Twins Song and Dance Act". Los Angeles Times. 1994-04-25. Retrieved 2021-07-30.
"Royce Perez Blackburn; Musical Performer, 69". The New York Times. April 21, 1994. Retrieved 2021-07-30.

Djflem (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2021 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 15:45, 31 July 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. Daniel (talk) 23:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kintech Lab[edit]

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

Unreferenced article in CAT:NN's backlog for 12 years. I couldn't establish it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no major news coverage, or signifiers of notability that I was able to find, including searching "Кинтех Лаб". It seems like it gets mentioned occasionally in scientific articles, but that's not nearly enough to pass notability. Also, two of the products listed on the wiki page Khimera and Chemical WorkBench read like ads and don't pass the smell test. If someone is willing (I admit I am too lazy at the moment), give those a look as well and if they fail a WP:BEFORE put them up for AfD alongside this one. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 20:11, 30 July 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. Daniel (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity, Delaware[edit]

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

A federal gazetteer from 1909 refers to this as a "postal village", which appears to mean that it is nothing more than a 4th class post office, as a 1919 topo shows nothing here. And there still isn't anything specific other than sprawl from Millsboro. I do not see a notable settlement here. Mangoe (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dublin Hill, Delaware. Dough4872 22:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dough4872: it would be helpful to me if you would expand on your rationale instead of referring to another AfD, or you could start a thread over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (geographic features). In particular, searching for GNIS in the archives might be of use. As Reywas92 states, appearance in the GNIS is not sufficient, time and time again we have found non-notable locales that are present in the GNIS but do not meet WP:GNG nor WP:GEOLAND. Cxbrx (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The rationale above is false, there is not automatic notability merely for appearance in the WP:GNIS map name database. Needs significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 14:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

newspaper article here, detailing this had a post office, school, store, and church. Finding a few very local articles about the church's 100th anniversary in the 1970s, but I'm not seeing much else. That article is too short to be enough on its own. Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church (Bridgeville, Delaware) is elsewhere in the county, so that isn't the Trinity Church. I'm just not finding a whole lot here, so delete unless additional sourcing can be turned up I couldn't find. Hog Farm _Talk 23:23, 30 July 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. Daniel (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2002–03 Florentia Viola season[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Sakiv (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sakiv (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no sources presented and no evidence topic meets GNG. Giant Snowman 09:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. Fails GNG and NSPORT. Also, content fork. This topic is more than sufficiently covered in the Wikipedia article entitled: "ACF Fiorentina" - specifically in the section entitled: "Della Valle era 2000-2010". ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Steve. This adds nothing to the parent article other than a squad list. A separate article on this topic is completely unnecessary, in my view. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:24, 1 August 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 "keep" opinions attack the nominator or discuss generalities, but they don't do the one thing that could save this article: cite reliable sources that cover (rather than just use or mention) this phrase in depth. Sandstein 15:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a good thing[edit]

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

This article consists almost entirely of original research and synthesis. Most of the cited sources use a form of the "and that's a good thing" headline, but none of them actually discuss the use of this phrase in other sources. Because the sources only contain uses of this phrase, rather than in-depth discussion about the phrase, it fails WP:GNG/WP:WORDISSUBJECT. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but with the clear acknowledgement that my !vote should probably be given less weight because this sort of thing is my sort of thing, and that's a good thing (Sorry!). In all seriousness, I'm generally of the view that these sorts of idioms and phraseology that have found their way into common vernacular have a place on Wikipedia. I totally understand why this has been nominated, but I remain of that view. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:06, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I concur with the nominator-- none of the sources cited actually discussed the phrase, all they did was use the phrase. Fails WP:GNG. Helen(💬📖) 00:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Since when is AfD for cleanup? The complaints are about the sources currently in the article. Has the nominator made any attempt been made to discuss this with the article creator? Or to find sources? He seems to have done neither. Absolute worst case this should be kicked back to draft space or userspace. Or there could be a merge/redirect to clickbait. Furthermore, the article creator has virtually no edits. Is it necessary to WP:BITE with this trigger-happy AfD nom?
I don't believe GNG exactly applies here in any event. Articles about words and phrases are difficult to write and difficult to source in a way that provides the requisite two news articles we typically demand from run-of-the-mill subjects like biographies and events. It's unquestionable that this is a common clickbaity headline element about which there has been interest, just that separating the wheat from the chaff in doing source analysis is difficult. The author of this article should be commended for taking on such a difficult subject rather than suddenly face an AfD nomination. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am still fairly new to understanding all of Wikipedia's guidelines, and I apologize for arriving a bit late, I had to read quite a bit of material to confidently voice my opinion. I do not feel that the stated reasoning for deletion is valid this early in the article's publication. To refer to WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP: I would argue these complaints are in the clean-up level. If this article is already so irreconcilable that it must be deleted, I would like to see the necessary evaluations of the four criteria of WP:BEFORE, showing a lack of sources that would cover WP:GNG (assuming those are the appropriate notability guideline for this phrase) and that the improvement of this article's sourcing is not possible as per section C of WP:BEFORE as well as WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. In relation to the article's subject, there would have to be a clear case for the strict application of the notability guidelines here. On Wikipedia, this sort of article, discussing cliches, their origins and usage, writing and sourcing can be complex. But this fact alone doesn't merit immediate deletion, and while it could at most be pushed back to draft space, the relevancy of this topic merits being available for public editing. "And that's a good thing" is a strong contemporary example of template-style article headlines, which supplements the growing study of clickbait journalism. Thus, I would argue that this article does merit being kept for improvement, and I am looking for additional sources now to help improve this article. The Star Baron (talk) 02:59, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments The Star Baron. Respectfully, I think you may have misunderstood my deletion rationale. The problems with the article are not cleanup-level (I think it's actually pretty well written for what it is); rather, there are foundational issues with notability and the synthesis of sources (see WP:SYNTH). While there are many sources that use the phrase in question, there aren't any sources I can find about the phrase in question. (And yes, I did do a WP:BEFORE to look for such sources; I probably should have explicitly mentioned this in my nom statement.) Because of this, it will be next to impossible to create a substantive article on this topic that is free from original research. Consider the following claims from the article: "From 2010 to 2015, use of the phrase starting gaining traction amongst mainstream journalists..." or "When attached to the titles of modern news articles, the phrase's intended effect can be akin to that of clickbait". Neither of these general claims are supported by sources; they are your own interpretations (i.e., synthesis) of the primary sources in the article. While I understand this may be frustrating, Wikipedia is simply not the right forum to present novel claims based on personal analysis of primary sources. We only accept articles that have received significant coverage in independent sources, as outlined in our general notability guideline. WP:WORDISSUBJECT affirms that this general guideline applies to words and phrases as well. To quote: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources." I emphasize subject to reinforce my initial point that there must be sources about this phrase to establish its notability, rather than sources that simply use the phrase. Hopefully this clarifies my rationale, and I welcome any further comments you may have. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood my deletion rationale. The problems with the article are not cleanup-level. I think you should look at your own rationale. You complain about synthesis and original research; those are cleanup issues, not notability issues and not grounds for deletion. In your response here, you mention a few problematic phrases... my response is WP:SOFIXIT. Why are we here?
And you complain about sourcing, but where is your WP:BEFORE analysis? Even in your response here, you've failed the most basic requirement for nominating anything for deletion. Do an analysis and show your work or withdraw this nomination. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In defence of the nomination, I’ve done quite a comprehensive search of the usual places from WP:BEFORE as well as my workplace’s library system and can find no sources speaking about this phrase (admittedly it is a hard thing to search for). WP:WORDISSUBJECT is pretty clear about what is notable. Unless other editors can show me some reliable sources talking about the phrase, I cannot see how this article can stay. Our job as editors is not to make the case for what should be notable but to write about what already is notable. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a WP:BEFORE, and I found no reliable secondary or tertiary sources about the phrase. Asking me to "show [my] work" when I found no sources is basically asking me to prove a negative, which I don't think is reasonable. If it is true that there are only primary sources on this topic (i.e., sources that use the phrase but do not discuss it), then the synthesis and original research are not fixable; we need secondary sources to resolve those issues. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your nomination statement doesn't indicate that. And please don't pull the "omg I can't prove a negative". Nobody is asking you to do that. You need to say what you did, in detail, in an attempt to find sources, what you found. Until this post you didn't even say you searched for sources. In light of this late declaration, which belies an evident unfamiliarity with deletion on Wikipedia, it is essential that you detail what you did to search for sources. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... an evident unfamiliarity with deletion on Wikipedia. Oh?. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Provide a WP:BEFORE analysis. I don't care what the AfD stats tools page says. This isn't RfA. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize again for my delayed response, I recently subscribed to the Dolly Parton work schedule, but I am home now and have taken a bit more time to read through everyone's replies and through the guidelines that have been cited. I see a few more people have now gathered here to discuss my page, and I would like to thank all of you for taking the time to participate. Now, if the sole argument pertains to the lack of secondary sources detailing the phrase’s use, and it is in the majority's opinion that the article’s primary sources sufficiently cover this noticed and notable topic, then the limit of possible action taken against this page would have to be to move it to a different space (draftspace specifically) until the page’s established potential is realized. But, I do not agree with the argument that the lack of secondary sourcing alone is enough grounds for draftspacing or even deleting this page this early, thus blocking off further public inquiry and editing and sourcing of the topic. The cited Wikipedia guidelines about clean-up level issues are designed for articles that are notable topics, but need improvements that include finding sources, as per the mentioning of “eventually sourceable” content in WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. And as I and even users in favor of deletion have stated, this topic has characteristics that make it unusually difficult to properly source. The grounds for draftspacing would be a conclusion reached only a week after this article was even published, that the removal of synthesis in this page through sourcing is completely impossible. After being confronted with these issues I have ramped up my search for these sources, but I certainly would not consider my efforts to be exhausted past the satisfaction of reasons 6 and 7 in the listed reasons for deletion in WP:DEL-REASON. If placing a timer on this page before moving it to draftspace became the only option, I would understand, but I would not agree with it. I still believe this topic is prevalent enough as a phenomenon to have the potential to satisfy notability guidelines, and public interaction with the page would greatly benefit the process of satisfying those guidelines. And as for the citing of WP:WORDISSUBJECT, I would argue that “and that’s a good thing”’s role as a cliche in clickbait journalism merits its categorization as a concept through which the larger study of clickbait can be seen and better understood. I agree that secondary sources are needed in order to complete the description of this topic as that concept, which is why this page needs to exist in order for editors such as myself to find and include them. The Star Baron (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you have described is the definition of WP:ORIGINAL. Wikipedia is not the venue for this kind of thing. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of secondary sources could be used to argue that my two sentences of interpretation as quoted by Lord Bolingbroke are pieces of original research, or rather are only describing context based off of my primary sources. However, I must reiterate the short life of this article, and that the inclusion of only primary sources and contextual statements to demonstrate a phrase’s notability can be seen in multiple long-standing vocabulary and usage stubs on Wikipedia, which “this kind of thing” could be included as (as well as a journalism- and politics-related topic). The article for All singing, all dancing for instance, though it has been suggested to be merged with the film’s page from which the idiom originated, has stayed on Wikipedia because it is still used today in its own evolving context. With the article for Carrot and stick, though the sources showing specific political use of the phrase are from very notable people such as heads of state, the article almost entirely consists of attestations. Articles like Necktie social and Standpatter Republican have even less attestations to support the existence of each phrase, let alone commentary on their origins by a secondary source, yet their articles still exist — and perhaps that’s a good thing. Or an understandable thing, at least. All jokes aside, I am in no way arguing that deletion nominators should go on a warpath and decimate the vocabulary and usage stubs index, though I am aware of the controversy behind its existence. My response to that controversy is that these pages discuss phrases which wouldn't be sufficiently covered by just a Wiktionary definition; they are known in the English lexicon and have specific origins, apply to certain broader subjects, or have a meaning or effect beyond the words themselves. They are marked as stubs because they are hard to source and need to continue being available for development so those sources can be found. With 35 direct attestations of “and that’s a good thing” across 30 years in the same context, this page has surpassed the threshold of being allowed a stub categorization that could be helped by users “further expanding it” as per Wikipedia editors' current standards on phrase usage stubs. I still would understand the draftspacing of this page, but I don't understand how this nomination isn't seen as a very harsh action to take this early, considering the stage this article is already at compared to much older articles covering similarly-structured topics. The Star Baron (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I can do is refer you to my previous comment. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already responded to it. There is a standing precedent on Wikipedia of holding articles of this type, concerning phrase usage, that have potential notability but need secondary sources or other clean-up issues including OR, as stubs so they can be further developed. If a larger argument against that entire stub section ends up reaching a consensus, I would understand, but that consensus has not been reached, and that section still stands on Wikipedia today. The Star Baron (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would welcome some examples of this precedent. Every time these WP:ORIGINAL articles are left to stand due to lack of consensus (because people feel they should be there - which is not a thing on WP) I lose a little bit more faith in this website and I'm sure readers do too. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is completely WP:ORIGINAL. None of the current sources discuss this phrase and I cannot find any RS that do talk about this phrase. WP is not for original research like this - and that’s a good thing. Vladimir.copic (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to drafts My initial reaction was that this was obviously a notable topic, but it doesn't seem like there are any secondary or tertiary sources. All the articles used are examples of the phenomenon described. I'd be surprised if there aren't sources about that trope, but they aren't in the article. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be surprised if there aren't sources about that trope, but they aren't in the article. This isn't how notability works though. If they aren't in the article then what's needed is cleanup, not deletion. I'll concede that draftification is an option though. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - That actually is exactly how it works? If there are sources they have to be found and either mentioned here, or added to the page. If they can't be found we have to assume it's not notable. BuySomeApples (talk) 18:17, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary. The sourcing appears to be entirely attestations, and not sources about the phrase. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:29, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article violates Wikipedia's policy on original research. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 01:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Move to drafts per BuySomeApples. I didn't find any sources explaining the origin of the phrase or idiom. Althouth the creating editor cites almost 40 sources they are all just usages of the phrase. Blue Riband► 12:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by Lugnuts. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Xiaoqian[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for two years. The article is an orphan (some incorrect incoming links), there's no equivalent article on another wiki either. I don't speak or read Chinese, so I'm not in a position to search for sources. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 宋心蕊; 燕帅 (2020-12-07). "央视记者刘骁骞新书上市在AK47的枪口下走进毒窟" ["Traveling by Land-A Latin American Drug Investigation by a Chinese Journalist". CCTV reporter Liu Xiaoqian's new book is listed. Walk into the drug cave under the gun of AK47]. Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-07-30. Retrieved 2021-07-30 – via People's Daily.
  From Google Translate: "However, this is not the first time Liu Xiaoqian has "made a risk with his body." In the nine years of Brazilian overseas interviews, Liu Xiaoqian visited the anti-drug town deep in the Amazon rainforest, followed the police to intercept drug-carrying vehicles in the southwestern hinterland, visited the black market for smuggling guns on the border between Uruguay and Brazil, interviewed the slum drug cartel in Rio de Janeiro, and filmed Cocaine production process in the "Silver Triangle" of Latin America. He and the camera followed the trail of drugs and guns in Brazil, trying to piece together a complete drug trafficking chain. Based on this experience, the book "Landing on a Boat-A Chinese Journalist's Latin American Drug Investigation" was officially launched this week."
2. "来自泉州央视记者在美国骚乱中淡定采访多次深入危险地报道" [CCTV reporter from Quanzhou calmly interviewed during the riots in the U.S. and reported in-depth and dangerously many times]. 泉州晚报 (in Chinese). 2020-06-03. Archived from the original on 2021-07-30. Retrieved 2021-07-30 – via Sina Corp.
  From Google Translate: "In the danger and chaos, we saw the familiar figure again-CCTV reporter: Liu Xiaoqian (from Jinjiang, Quanzhou). Liu Xiaoqian, born in Jinjiang, Quanzhou, Fujian, was born in 1988. He studied in Jinjiang No. 1 Middle School. The university is a degree 06 Portuguese major at Communication University of China. From 2007 to 2008, he went to the Federal University of Sul, Brazil as an exchange student. In the summer of 2009, he went to the Autonomous University of Madrid in Spain for exchanges and participated in Tencent's report on the front of the 2010 South Africa Football World Cup. After graduating in 2010, he entered the CCTV News Center. Since 2011, he has been a reporter at the CCTV Latin America Center. This time, he came to Minnesota, where the incident occurred, and went to the scene of the most passionate parade for interviews."
3. 布呐呐 (2021-01-07). "美国暴乱画面传来，人们都在寻找一个中国人" [U.S. grievances spread, and people are looking for a Chinese person] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. Archived from the original on 2021-07-30. Retrieved 2021-07-30.
  From Google Translate: "Speaking of the name Liu Xiaoqian, Many people are no strangers. How "god" is he? He went deep into the Brazilian drug lord den; Visited Colombian armed guerrillas known as "killing machines"; Unannounced visits to the black market of smuggling guns at the Brazilian border; Exposure of the Latin American "Silver Triangle" drug trafficking process." From Google Translate: "August 2019, Liu Xiaoqian ended his life as a journalist based in Brazil for the past nine years. Started the work of reporters based in the United States. However, it was viruses, shootings and violence that greeted him here... Last year, Liu Xiaoqian came to the demonstration site in Souda to conduct an interview."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Liu Xiaoqian (simplified Chinese: 刘骁骞; traditional Chinese: 劉驍騫) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: - many thanks for this. Excellent work. Happy to withdraw this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:49, 30 July 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. Daniel (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Istok Totić[edit]

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

Career in Scotland was only at amateur level and caps for Serbia do not meet the requirements of WP:NRU. The only English language coverage appears to be Greenock Telegraph providing 2 passing mentions. A Serbian search only yields two Rugby Ozone squad list mentions [1] [2] and a squad list mention in Rugby Pobednik. I don't believe that this is enough to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, fails WP:NRU with no professional appearances or notable international appearances, and as nom states don't think there is enough for a GNG pass either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.Skeene88 (talk) 09:35, 30 July 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. Geschichte (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon Jew count[edit]

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

Page was created in February 2020 yet still contains just one sentence, a single reference, and is an orphan. This subject fails Wikipedia:Notability and does not merit a standalone page. Basketcase2022 (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – the Slate piece cited in the article clearly provides substantial coverage, and it provides links to numerous other in-depth discussions of the topic. And if that isn't enough, there's lots of coverage elsewhere: see [3] [4][5] [6] [7]. This article needs expansion, not deletion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty of sourcing out there for this notable topic. As Extraordinary Writ said, the solution here is to expand the article, not to delete it. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Deletion is not the solution here. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Richard Nixon Keep (this is aside from the article being woefully lacking of any information or context). While this does seem like an important incident and is recorded in enough reliable sources to warrant its inclusion on WP, only the Slate articles by Timothy Noah (as far as I can see) characterise this as the milestone of "last recorded act of official anti-Semitism by the United States government". Instead it seems to be mostly spoken about in the context of Nixon's general anti-Semitism and/or conspiratorial thinking. I think giving this incident it's own page gives it undue prominence as an event of lasting historic significance when this seems to just be one writer's view. Seems to be more appropriate to place this within the wider context of Nixon's administration like most sources do. In other words, I don't think the event meets WP:LASTING. Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Changed my !vote due to significant (and admirable) work done on improving this article. Still think there is more to be done and have big issues with the name of the article however which I will move to the talk page after the closure of this process. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a solid argument for re-writing the article so that description is attributed to the person with that opinion (rather than Wikipedia's voice), but it's not an argument for deletion, and really not an argument for merging either. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, that line has been edited out (appropriately). St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And - having done some more work to improve the article - I see even less reason to delete or merge it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair enough view which I still disagree with. The article is looking a tad better (although its sparsity still reflects it's lack of standalone notability). Two further points:

This seems to be a personal crusade of Timothy Noah who has written 10+ articles about this over the course of a decade. Without this forceful viewpoint of a single author would we still consider this a notable event rather than just an episode in the Nixon admin and Fred Malek's life as most other sources position it?
Perhaps I am being overly sensitive here but isn't the term "Nixon's Jew Count" quite an offensive title for this article? As far as I can see Noah is the only one to use this term and others only use it to refer to Noah's work. Among the sources their is no clear consensus around the name for this event (further making me dispute WP:LASTING). Maybe a less offensive (though less catchy) title would be "Richard Nixon's Discrimination against Jewish Bureau of Labor Statistics Staff". Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both valid points. I will say that it is covered in far more detail (with better-presented sources) at Fred Malek and we would do well to borrow some of the prose from there (though that's another reason not to merge it to Nixon's article).

1. Yes, I believe we would. It prompted the resignation of a deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee some 17 years later. He was subsequently forgiven (and even received an award from the peak Jewish organisation in the US) but it was significant enough that it prompted commentary from a number of Jewish community leaders.

2. JTA described Malek as the one "who counted Jews for Nixon", and the letter Malek wrote to Nixon is referred to (well before Noah) as the "Jew count" memo. I'm not wedded to the title and would have no problem with an RFC after this AFD to resolve that question.

St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:11, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a stickler but it is "'Jew-counting' memo". Neither of the terms you brought up are the title of the current article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, and my use of quotation marks was unhelpful. My point was that others had referred to it as 'Jew counting' or the 'counting of Jews', and at least one source did so 13 years before Noah. Noah consistently refers to it as "Nixon's Jew count". I don't think its an unfair title, given the sources, but as I said, I'm happy to have a discussion about the title of the article following this AfD. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Issues with the title notwithstanding, there's consensus that this was a significant controversy and that there are plenty of sources. I added a few new ones to the article for good measure. Any issues with the proper title would be better left for the talk page imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename regarding deletion, this is a Keep per Extraordinary Writ. However, the title is awkward and doesn't seem to be commonly used in this exact syntax by the sources. If nobody has an obvious fix, this may require an RM immediately after this discussion closes. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Notability, which was the issue raised in the nomination, has been amply demonstrated. I don't think merging to Richard Nixon would be appropriate per WP:PROPORTION (unsure about merging to Presidency of Richard Nixon). As noted above, the article Fred Malek covers this in some detail, but I don't think merging/redirecting there would be appropriate since Nixon rather than Malek is the central figure here. At any rate, I don't think the question about whether to merge this (and where) absolutely needs to be resolved at this AfD. I have no opinion on the title. As an aside, this article seems like it could potentially be WP:DYK material if somebody feels like putting in the time and effort. TompaDompa (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:Notability had been established--Steamboat2020 (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, as it has significant coverage, but it needs expansion.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:07, 5 August 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. Daniel (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stonetoss[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (and WP:NARTIST for good measure, though it would be a stretch to apply that here). Only reliable sources that give significant coverage to the webcomic, both currently in the article and in a WP:BEFORE check, are a pair from The Daily Dot.[8][9] That's scant on it's own, but per WP:RSP and previous RSN discussions, The Daily Dot is also probably a bad indicator of notability given the high volume of articles it churns out about obscure parts of the Internet. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, if you say so.You can delete it of you want. If Stonetoss reveives more notability in the future, though, I hope we can reinstall the page. Dunutubble (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It has to be taken into account that it just seems like a non-notable web comic. Even if it was notable, deletion would still probably be preferred for WP:TNT, since it's in a very poorly written state right now. Curbon7 (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing but passing mentions in reliable sources, just some vaguely controversial Twitter user. Pretty sure there's no notability standard for vaguely controversial Twitter users, but still. casualdejekyll (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if we must have an article about them then noting the qualities that the dailydot articles not would be essential, and I'm not convinced they would be off limits for sources, but not having an article solves that problem also. Artw (talk) 02:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. the creator Dunutubble seems to be a fairly new user and I don't think the user intends to act disruptively. I believe the user should be invited to read WP:RS, as the article has some non-RS non-expert user-made links such as Medium. --► Sincerely: Sola virum 19:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources just don't add up to notability. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not enough sources Sahaib (talk) 20:05, 3 August 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. Daniel (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Čvor[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:NORG. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 19:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the publishing company certainly exists, and claims to have published 200 "puzzle"-related books over 50 years. That said, I can't find any secondary sources, or any evidence any of those books are particularly notable. This is partly because the coverage would be in Serbo-Croatian and Čvor means knot. I'd feel more comfortable with a delete vote if somebody with better language skills checked for sources, this can be considered a "soft delete" vote. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:43, 31 July 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. The nominator has failed to advance any argument for deletion. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rajanya Mitra[edit]

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

Created by a checkuser. Bapinghosh (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bapinghosh (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have (twice) removed a !vote that was made in violation of a block ([10][11], cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amkgp), though I do note that having been created by a user who was blocked after the page was created (which is presumably what Bapinghosh was referring to in their statement) is not grounds for deletion. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per the note above, there's no deletion argument presented, so this discussion should be speedy kept immediately. Silver seren^C 00:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification about this AfD was made at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red [12]. Beccaynr (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep the article has a good amount of sources for an actor and plenty of role. I'm not even sure what the nominator was saying. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:45, 30 July 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. Daniel (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Šits[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY as he has yet to make a senior appearance. Fails WP:GNG as well as coverage is routine in my opinion. Draftifying isn't even that worth it as there isn't even a source in the article. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not so sure, [13], [14], [15], [16]. Just some of the sources I found gives credence that the player could actually pass WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, GNG bar shouldn't be placed so lowly. Of the above references, 1 seems commercial and 2 is from his former club, so not independent. Geschichte (talk) 16:47, 1 August 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. Technically a WP:SNOW keep as this hasn't been listed on the log for 7 days. It is clear that NOLYMPICS is met. Some people argue that GNG is not met, but the majority opinion is that multiple specifically-identified sources show GNG is met as well. (non-admin closure) User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 20:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Barrett[edit]

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

The creator of this article insists that it exist, and has illegally removed the speedy deletion tag, even though it does not comply with "A7. No indication of importance" He and another have removed reasonable Speedy Deletion tag without providing any additional information that would make the article valid. We don't have articles for any and all Olympic athletes.--Tallard (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Indeed we can have articles for any and all Olympic athletes, per policy; Wikipedia:NOLYMPICS to be specific. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Aranya (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not Wikipedia's rule, the rule states: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games," Barrett is not a past Olympian. So this "keep" is not justified.--Tallard (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect. The rule is not "past Olympians but not current or imminent ones" — and even if that were the rule, the Olympics that she's competing in will be "past" in just a few weeks anyway, meaning that the article would have to come back in just one month and would be entirely pointless to delete now. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ keep. For better or worse, we presume notability for all Olympians. pburka (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not Wikipedia's rule, the rule states: "Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games," Barrett is not yet competed in any Olympics. So this "keep" is not justified, as it does not follow Wikipedia guidelines.--Tallard (talk) 05:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly our rule. What you failed to mention in your nomination is that she isn't an Olympic athlete yet. However she will be shortly and she also passes WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pburka and Tallard, the NSPORT guideline actually explicitly requires subjects to meet GNG; meeting NOLY only presumes GNG. See the FAQs at the top of NSPORT, which include:

The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline... Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline.

and

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.

JoelleJay (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A trans woman taking a place at the Olympics is going to be controversial and hence indisputably notable.Dejvid (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The nominator has buried the lede by focusing on “we don’t cover all Olympians” (false) rather than “this athlete is not yet an Olympian” (true) as the rationale. I think the strongest rationale for deletion is WP:CRYSTALBALL, especially since COVID makes the next Olympics less certain. However, I am still in favor of a keep (which I suppose would be per GNG); the profile in the Toronto Star and her Lausanne record tie seem like enough to keep the article for now, especially since she is a presumed imminent Olympian. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Will pass WP:NOLYMPICS in less than a month and also passes WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whether you agree with it or not, we do have a rule that competing at the Olympics is "inherently" notable in and of itself, and that rule is not that the person's appearance at the Olympics has to be historical and cannot be current or imminent. If something happens in the next few weeks to remove the Olympics from her notability claim, such as the entire event being completely cancelled at the last minute due to the emergence of a new vaccine-proof COVID variant and thus never happening at all, then we can revisit this when that time comes — but the semantic difference between a "past" Olympian and a person who's competing in an Olympics that are just two weeks away, and thus will be a "past" Olympian by August, is not the hook to hang a deletion argument on in the meantime. And if your real problem is the claims about her gender identity that have been getting inserted into the article without legitimate sourcing for them, we have other ways (the page has already been semi-protected!) to deal with those. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, there is no rule that competing in the Olympics is inherently notable; NSPORT specifically requires any subject meeting a sport-specific guideline to also meet GNG since the SSGs only presume (GNG-based) notability. See NSPORT FAQs #1, 2, and 5, which include the statements:
The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline... Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline.

and

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline.
JoelleJay (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the FAQ at the top of WP:ATHLETE, which WP:NOLYMPICS is a subsection of, the Wikipedia community consensus is pretty clear that passing any of the sports-specific notability guidelines is not an automatic notability pass. It only means that the subject is likely to have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. The subject still has to been shown that it has said coverage for its article to be kept. Below are the related FAQ sections from WP:ATHLETE.
Q1: How is this guideline related to the general notability guideline?
A2: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.)
Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?
A2: No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions. For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. (For subjects in the past where it is more difficult to locate sources, it may be necessary to evaluate the subject's likely notability based on other persons of the same time period with similar characteristics.)
Q3: If a sports figure does not meet the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards?
A3: No, it does not mean this—if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist.)
Right now, I'm only seeing this article in the Toronto Star that can be considered significant coverage. Are there any more significant sources on the subject? Alvaldi (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. The only significant coverage I can find on the subject is the Toronto Star article from 5 July 2021. Even if a few significant article would be written this month the subject would still fail GNG as it requires that the coverage is over a substantial amount of time, not just a brief blurb of headlines. It should be noted than all of the above !votes go against the Wikipedia community consensus by 1. claiming that the subject passes WP:GNG without pointing to any sources to back that up 2. state that the subject passes WP:NOLYMPICS (which she doesn't) and thus should be kept but leaving out the fact even if the subject passed WP:NOLYMPICS she would still have to pass GNG as is clearly stated in WP:ATHLETE 3. state that she might have sources in the future which clearly goes against Wikipedia's community consensus per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON. Alvaldi (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you’re coming from with 2 and 3 but I don’t think such a firm GNG reject per your point 1 is supported. What you’ve quoted suggests that when a subject passes WP:NOLYMPICS, that puts the burden of proof on the deleter to prove a strong fail of GNG, which I think requires a more thorough WP:BEFORE than has been done. Even the GNG itself only provides a strong presumption of notability and not a guarantee, so saying a subject is presumed-but-not-proven notable is not as definitive as you suggest. I assume you’ve rejected the archery.ca source on the grounds that it’s not independent (I need convincing), but looking just at the first page of Google news results I find these possible sources: 1 2 3 — the RDS one especially looks like significant coverage to my eye, and the others are reporting on results of events she competed in. I’m not as familiar with what SIGCOV looks like for sports, so maybe more is needed, but I’m not yet convinced that there’s a lack of SIGCOV. Only CRYSTALBALL strikes me as a viable override of OLYMPIC, but CRYSTALBALL is really meant for articles which can’t contain any non-speculative information, whereas Barrett’s article includes past events and her current qualification, which has in fact occurred. I think the best rationale remains your 2, the fact that she may not be “an Olympian” until the games actually take place, which increasingly strikes me as one of those “technically correct” rulings that goes against common sense. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my interpretation that passing a sports-specific notability guideline, like WP:NOLYMPICS, puts the burden of proof on the nominator, rather is meant to stop the article from being speedily deleted. Regardless, a nominator should always do a WP:BEFORE, which I suspect was not done here. As for WP:SIGCOV for sports, it is the same as for others articles, i.e. coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. Archery.ca is the website for the national governing body for the sport of Archery in Canada and as such is a primary source and not independent of the subject, similar to a team or league websites. Of the three sources you found, the ones in the Toronto Sun and the cbc.ca are WP:TRIVIAL mentions, both only briefly mentioning Barrett once. The RDS article for me is to small to constitude as a significant coverage but even if we did consider it significant, that means we have two articles dated 28 June 2021 and 5 July 2021 which would not constitude a WP:SUSTAINED coverage over a sufficiently significant period of time. The bottom line is that Barrett has to have significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject over a sufficiently significant period of time. As it stands, I am not seeing that coverage about Barrett even though I have searched extensively. Alvaldi (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The argument of WP:SUSTAINED doesn't apply here. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of articles on Olympians here that are based on WP:NOLYMPICS. Are you arguing those articles should be deleted as well? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SUSTAINED absolutely applies here. WP:ATHLETE makes it very clear that all its subjects must met WP:GNG and GNG requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Regardless of whether a person is an Olympian, professional footballer, politician or something else, if the person does not have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG then he or she should not have a stand-alone article on Wikipedia. I am not arguing for anything other than we follow the Wikipedia policies, something that unfortunately routenly gets ignored in the sports related AfD's. Alvaldi (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS is also a policy, and there is a long-standing consensus that all Olympians are notable. If you wish to change that, I don't think individual AfDs are the best way. pburka (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia community consensus can be found in its policies, which I've quoted above, and it is clear on that all athletes, Olympians or not, must pass WP:GNG. Local consensus by editors in a sport specific project does not override the wider community consensus. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Alvaldi (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're playing wikilawyers, let's be clear that GNG is a *guideline*, not a policy, and guidelines are meant to describe best practices for following policies. Sometimes guidelines don't accurately reflect actual practice. This isn't a matter of local consensus: keeping Olympians has never been controversial. I challenge you to find previous AfDs for Olympians that didn't end in keep. pburka (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is indeed a guideline but we have policies which tell us what to do and why to do it, and guidelines to help us with how to do it. Just how exactly is a person notable if we have to ignore the principal policies and guidelines of Wikipedia for it to be included? Alvaldi (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about archery.ca being a primary source, but between the Toronto Star and RDS it’s still a GNG pass for me. I don’t agree that this coverage fails WP:SUSTAINED. SUSTAINED is not really about the literal number of days occurring between articles; if it was, we couldn’t have an article about the 2021 European floods yet. Instead it says “If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.” These articles discuss multiple different archery events and as an Olympian she is unlikely to remain a low-profile individual. The various trivial mentions that show up are the best proof, I think, that the coverage is sustained—- she has been relevant to multiple articles in multiple contexts. I can see that we don’t have a Michael Phelps quantity of coverage here but we have enough that it feels silly to delete based on a pedantic WP:CRYSTALBALL. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have never had consistent agreement on the relationship between the athletics SNGs and the GNG. Myself, I would prefer to say that both must be met for athletes, but if we had a more sensible /SNG, such as the French standard of being in the top 5 in the Olympic results, then I'd say that such a SNG would be enough. Alvaldi is correct in emphasising that the basic principle is WP:NOT DIRECTORY and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The GNG is just one part of the guidelines interpreting it, as is the SNG; they not infrequently give incompatible results, which requires us to use our judgment case by case. IMy own judgment is thatthis is a case of TOO SOON. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think this is the place to determine the relationship between athletics SNGs and GNG, but if both have to be met, what is the point of the SNG? I am more familiar with book editing where the SNG WP:NBOOK is extremely concrete and specific, which lets it be used as a contextually-clearer GNG substitute (it sounds like a low bar but you’d be amazed how many books don’t pass). It seems like an RfC or something is called for if the athletics SNG isn’t actually useful. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the Star article, along with this and this, the latter mentioning equalling the Canadian record, and this too, the article should pass WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: The Star article, as has been stated above, is a very good source and the economist.com article is intriguing but is behind a paywall so it is difficult to assess whether it is significant coverage or a trivial one. You wouldn't happen to have access to the rest of the Economist article? The archysport.com article is a routine announcement on what looks like a fairly trivial website (Their Facebook page has 31 followers while the Twitter page has 69) and the article on Ontario Association of Archers would constitute as a primary source as it is not independent of the subject. Note that the three secondary sources are all from a span of under 20 days so that does not constitute as WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Alvaldi (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, I don't have access to the full article. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I do I have access to the full economist article, and Barrett isn't mentioned again-- it's a short 4-paragraph piece about the history of transgender athletes in the Olympics which just name-drops Barrett.~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There have been so many sources bandied about, I thought it would be helpful to summarize them. [EDIT: Last updated with new sources Jul 23 5pmEST]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Olympic archer Stephanie Barrett is pulling the strings on a real-life fantasy story	Toronto Star		all 1,183 words are on Barrett	✔ Yes
Six countries add Olympic quota places at Americas continental qualifier	? "World Archery is the international federation for the Olympic and Paralympic sport of archery" - maybe primary source?		All it says is "Stephanie Barrett qualified Canada a spot with second"	✘ No
Stephanie Barrett to be Nominated for Tokyo 2020	Archery Canada is considered a primary source		all 366 words are on Barrett	✘ No
Stephanie Barrett ties the Canadian Record at the Archery World Cup in Lausanne	Archery Canada is considered a primary source		2 out of 4 paragraphs are about Barrett	✘ No
Le Canada sera représenté par Stephanie Barrett et Crispin Duenas en tir à l'arc aux Jeux olympiques	Réseau des sports		all 166 words are on Barrett	✔ Yes
Qualifying for Tokyo Olympics an unprecedented challenge because of COVID-19	Toronto Sun		All it says is "Archery – 1 woman: Stephanie Barrett (Newmarket, Ont.) individual and mixed team."	✘ No
Canada tops podium to pin down Olympic berth in men's recurve archery	CBC		All it says is "The Canadian team of Duenas and Stephanie Barrett of Newmarket, Ont., was defeated 5-3 by Mexico in the mixed recurve bronze-medal match."	✘ No
Canada to be represented by Stephanie Barrett and Crispin Duenas in archery at the Olympics		? Archery Sport looks like a blog to me?	simple translation of RDS article, which can't count twice	✘ No
Why are transgender Olympians proving so controversial?	The Economist		All it says is "She will be joined by Stephanie Barrett, a Canadian archer."	✘ No
York Region Tokyo Olympics athlete profiles — Stephanie Barrett, Newmarket, archery		Local newspaper with independent reporting	? mostly reporting timing of relevant events, with 75-word bio of Barrett	? Unknown
Team Canada archers ready to take aim at Tokyo 2020	Olympics.ca has close ties to the subject		about 2/3 of the 512 words are about Barrett	✘ No
OLY ARC Archery Results	Associated Press		all it says is "46. Stephanie Barrett, Canada, 630."	✘ No
Olympic wake-up call: Let the Games begin	CBC		? 150-word section on archery (comes last), mentioning Barrett & including photo of her	? Unknown
Canadian archers just slightly off target in Olympic ranking rounds	National Post		280-word article splits focus between Barrett & Duenas, photo is of her	✔ Yes
Olympics overnight: Canadian mixed archers miss the mark in qualifying round, and more you missed while you were sleeping	Toronto Star		? 130-word section on archery (comes first), mentioning Barrett & cover photo for article is of her	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

[EDIT: since I have been updating the source table, comments below may be responding to earlier versions. Sorry for the confusion, I haven't used a source table in an AfD before and am not sure of the best approach-- this seems better than duplicating the chart every time? But if duplication would be clearer I can do that instead. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)] Looking at it all together, I can see how it's only a slim pass of GNG, hinging on whether others agree that the RDS coverage is "significant" because it's exclusively about Barrett. However, I think it's pretty good for someone who hasn't even competed in the Olympics yet-- it's not the total void of coverage that would justify overriding WP:NOLYMPICS in my mind-- and that Toronto Star profile especially is impressively long & thorough. The article will certainly be better in the future, but I don't think that means it is TOOSOON now. I still think it should be "keep." If others find more sources or want to rethink any of my assessments here, please ping me and I'll strike & update the source review. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great summarize. I also noticed that the Archery Sport article seems to be a word-for-word translation of the RDS article. I still think the RDS article is too weak, especially to be the second best source for an article, so I'm just not seeing GNG pass. For comparison sake (it is WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST I know, but bear with me), The hardest craftsman in Iceland 2019 who despite being in no danger of ever having an article on Wikipedia, has more significant coverage over a longer period of time than Barrett does.[17][18] So if we ask ourself, just how notable is Barrett if she has less significant coverage than a non-notable electrician in Iceland? Alvaldi (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete passes Wikipedia:NOLYMPICS but fails WP:GNG with only a single article about her (in the Toronto Star). Per guidelines, both GNG and NOLYMPICS need to be passed, therefore the article fails. The other article that would qualify to pass GNG is the Economist one, but that is a passing mention and not in-depth: "She will be joined by Stephanie Barrett, a Canadian archer. ". --hroest 19:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a couple of sources [19] and [20] and Per Lugnuts this article passes WP:GNG and WP:OLYMPICS. The article also passes WP:NSPORTS. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont see an in depth significant coverage in these "profile" articles that you provided, it just seems to list some stats in a list-like fashion (eg hometown, residence, sport, division) which is very far from what WP:GNG requires. I just dont see enough significant coverage here except one article. --hroest 15:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exactly, as it stands, all but one source are promotional materials, clearly going against Wikipedia's "nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity," WP:NOTPROMOTION.--Tallard (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Barrett has now officially competed at the 2020 Olympics. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, per WP:ATHLETE she still has to have the significant coverage to pass WP:GNG regardless of participating in the Olympics. I did a quick search to see if anything additional has been written but couldn't find anything other than brief mentions. Alvaldi (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article focused just on the archery results: 1 plus some more trivial coverage 2 3. I've updated the source chart above. I've been finding all this coverage really interesting, actually-- Canada has never medalled in archery at all, so I'm excited about Barrett's next Olympics. Perhaps her career would not be so notable in a country that gets a lot of Olympic medals, but for Canada, it is exciting to have a new Olympian (for the summer Olympics, even!) with so much promise. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If we want to have a discussion about changing the way we treat Olympic athletes in general, this isn't the right venue for it. I've never seen a verifiable Olympic athlete deleted at AfD before, and it would reflect poorly on this project if the first Olympian we did delete was a woman from a marginalized group. pburka (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion has already been had as can be seen in the community consensus shown in WP:ATHLETE, and that consensus is clear: All athletes must pass WP:GNG regardless of whether they pass sports-specific notability guidelines such as WP:NOLYMPICS. If articles of non-notable athletes are being kept despite them failing GNG then the discussion should be on why editors are going against the Wikipedia community consensus. On a further note, this is a modern day athlete from an english speaking country, if there were any more significant sources, they would be easily accessible. Alvaldi (talk) 16:48, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the RfC where it was discussed. If you can't, then stop WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. pburka (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus can be seen in the FAQ at the top of WP:ATHLETE, the links to the respective RfC are displayed in the FAQ under "References". Alvaldi (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC itself is here. The RfC concluded that the SNG "does not replace WP:GNG but supplements it and that articles that do not meet this guideline may still be included if they satisfy WP:GNG." Which surprised me, because that is not how the relationship between the two has been characterized. The consensus that athletes must pass GNG in addition to the SNG emerged in three talk page discussions 1 2 3, which show some variance in opinion and which I don't understand to be binding in the same way as a formal RfC. Which suggests that a proper RfC on this topic is likely called for, unrelated to this deletion discussion. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the source table above, there are already multiple sources giving Barrett significant coverage, which is enough to pass WP:GNG regardless of the SNG. (And she has competed in the Olympics now, so she passes the SNG too.) Regardless of whether or not all Olympic competitors are notable, an Olympian who's been profiled in her country's largest newspaper certainly is. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 08:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have no idea how this is not a speedy keep, given they have now competed in the Olympics. And now that the basis for User:Tallard's completely unnecessary and time-wasting AFD are gone, I don't know why they haven't at least had the grace to withdraw the nomination. Next time they want to nominate an Olympian on a debatable technicality after athletes have already started arriving for the games, perhaps they should WP:NORUSH and wait until the event. Nfitz (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist. The page was not listed in the log of the day it was created by the nominator. I have manually added it to today's log to start the correct process and allow AFD regulars to give their input as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 19:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and this can be closed already. BD2412 T 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG per above table and discussion, passes NOLYMPICS, and like BD2412 I see no reason why this can't be closed by the next mop-haver to show up here casualdejekyll (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this doesn't seem like the place to fight notability guidelines. If you have a problem with the notability guidelines, there are better places to suggest changes. Currently this page meets notability guidelines for Olympic athletes, if they change in the future then this could be renominated. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know I already voted but this comment by the nominator stood out to me; "has illegally removed the speedy deletion tag". It's uh...not a law first of all. I checked and it doesn't even seem like it's against the rules to remove a tag from a page you created. I doubt the nominator even checked guidelines before jumping on this. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are loads of articles on female archers who competed at this year's Olympics, all of similar length, yet only this article was nominated... There's an agenda there. Furius (talk) 12:31, 31 July 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 'keep' !votes are some of the better examples of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Daniel (talk) 20:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Misrra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a BLP about a reality show participant, model, and VJ. There are no claims to notability per WP:ENT in the article: reality show participants are not automatically notable, and the award she won, "Best Entertainer on TV" is not a notable award. In fact, when I was trying to find a source for that, to find out who awards "Best Entertainer", I only got search hits for this person. This (which is not a reliable source) says that the award is the "Aapki Awaaz media awards", which is conspicuously absent from all reliable sources or news reports.

As for WP:GNG, she has been written about to some extent. Most sources are primary or not reliable, but there are a couple of sources such as this one – the problem is that the non-primary coverage is almost exclusively about the subject's conflicts with other people, and there is no sign of any long-term relevance or importance. In a word, fighting with other reality show participants, or accusing the neighbours of attacking you with black magic, are not topics to base a BLP on, and there is clearly no lasting importance to any of the storm-in-a-teacup fights. This source is a very good gauge of her notability: not even the gossip rag Republic World knows anything, beyond the unsourced info that was in this WP article before it was cleaned up. bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - she’s a notable and worldwide known personality for her meme and participation on Bigg Boss.Positiveilluminati (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable independent sources that show that she is notable? The notability requirements for actors and celebrities are here, and the general notability criteria for people are here and here. --bonadea contributions talk 09:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also can you please add this to the category of Indian media Personalities for a fair judgement the categories are not befitting. Positiveilluminati (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that the article should be added to another category, or that this discussion should be listed somewhere else, in addition to the four lists it is placed on? Which (exact) category or list do you mean? The deletion sorting lists are very broad – you'll find all of them here. --bonadea contributions talk 09:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For deletion? So the Indian community can speak on this matter. Why is it that this article remained on mainspace for years and now suddenly when I’ve made an edit this comes to deletion? Can we get more opinions on this rather just you and I? Positiveilluminati (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/India, and there is no specific deletion sorting list for media personalities (of any nationality). However, since this discussion is also listed in three other places, it is advertised as widely as possible. Deletion discussions are usually open for 7 - 10 days, to give people a chance to give their input. --bonadea contributions talk 22:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur what bonadea has said above. I do not see anything that helps the subject pass WP:GNG and there ain't much indications of WP:ENT or WP:NACTOR likewise. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 06:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How come this was on mainspace for so long and now this decision is being made? Positiveilluminati (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a bad article exists in the mainspace for more than a decade, "it doesn't get the notability inherited". Wikipedia articles are subject to WP:N, those which fail get deleted. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 07:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to get the article kept, then please help to demonstrate notability by showing the sources that help the subject to pass WP:GNG, or simply any subjective criteria, WP:ENT in this case. ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 07:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One of the criteria is that the person must create or do a significant work? She literally created the meme “Pooja what is this behaviour” she’s on my for you page on TikTok STILL. case should be closed I’m pretty fair I don’t even know this person or anyone’s I’ve fought for and am neutral Positiveilluminati (talk) 14:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - she's iconic123.208.83.210 (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per bonadea, the difficulty finding independent and reliable sources to support notability per applicable guidelines, and per WP:BLP policy, e.g. it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment, which covers the majority of the sources I found. While I also found a brief WP:SECONDARY mention of the meme in The Print, it does not appear to be enough to support notability for a BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am aware and I know that What is this behaviour Pooja was viral and is practically a lingo amongst young Indians who watch television and beyond. But, an artist, should have their notability established through the conversations about their work and not because they accidentally got viral (There are usually no rhyme or reason for folks getting viral. It just happens). Fails notability test. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP She’s well known for doing something new in the Western countries too.Somethingniceau (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bonadea, Keep votes are less policy based more WP:ILIKEIT. Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia what is this behaviour?? I’m sorry I nominated it by mistake. You can’t nominate by mistake. Pooja is known worldwide for the what is this behaviour meme and I searched up her wiki to find out it’s been nominated?? KeepWilkoswifi (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. Mere particiaption in reality shows doesn't meet WP:ENT; Bigg Boss contestants in particular are expected to be notable for works outside of their participation in the show per WP:BIGBROTHER. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:40, 5 August 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. Daniel (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay V Srinivasan[edit]

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:CRIN inclusion guidelines (matches played not official T20 matches). The player has not played for the Tamil Nadu cricket team. For the same reason I am also nominating the following articles:

B Praanesh
M Ganesh Moorthi‎
Lokesh Raj TD
Abhinav Vishnu
StickyWicket (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom the above list of cricketers do not pass WP:CRIN and fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I'd prefer articles about individuals to be AfD separately to better come to consensus on GNG, I don't think any of these articles pass GNG. They don't pass the cricket guidelines either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about this deletion tag, Tamil Nadu Premier League is one of the biggest T20 cricket tournament in India, from this tournament many number of players are joined in team India, TNPL is huge platform and players talented, most trustable sports site ESPNCRICINFO provided details about these players, that's is the reason to creating articles for these players, I request to decline this deletion nomination as they are Official cricketers of Team TamilNadu, Thank You.Dhaneesh 🙃 Ram 15:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because the matches of Tamil Nadu Premier League do not have official status to meet WP:CRIN. Not seeing any coverage to meet GNG either. -- Ab207 (talk) 17:18, 30 July 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. The article has been significantly edited (and improved) since the start of the AfD (which is no bad thing) and focusing on the concerns of the nominator. Consensus seems to have swung towards keep since Koikefan's !vote. (non-admin closure) Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joao Constancia[edit]

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

While the band BoybandPH is clearly notable, the individually members are not. All sources are articles about the band, not about the individual members. Recommend leaving as a simple redirect. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect In the years to come should JC's career meet WP:GNG then the article can be restored and updated. MarnetteD|Talk 18:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to band. The individual members do not have notability on their own. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and salt to prevent recreation. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not sure why this discussion has been limited to BoyBandPH. Joao is the most notable member from that band but his notability arises not from BoyBandPH but from everything he's done after: starring in He's Into Her (the most popular Filipino TV show right now) as one of the 3 main lead actors, starring as one of the three main actors in Four Sisters Before the Wedding, a sequel to one of the most popular Filipino films of all time, and starring as the lead in his own Star Cinema movie, My Lockdown Romance. There are very few things more notable in Philippine entertainment than starring as the lead in a movie from Star Cinema, which is the largest and most notable movie production company in the country. Moreover, My Lockdown Romance was, I believe, considered the company's first BL movie, another point impacting its notability. Finally, all of these mentioned shows and films are from ABS-CBN, the largest media company in the Philippines and Southeast Asia. Joao also has 1million Instagram followers. So yes, he's not notable if you're only basing it off BoyBandPH but BoyBandPH was a long time ago. The aforementioned roles implicate points 1 and 3 for Entertainers in WP:BIO. Furthermore, a search of My Lockdown Romance on Google News will yield extensive coverage from a variety of reliable media sources, some even international. I realize none of this information is currently on the Wiki page but, per WP:NOTE, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." Koikefan (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Koikefan. I found some reliable sources which talk about him and his movie & TV roles: [21], [22], [23], [24] and [25]. That said, the article article needs to be updated and cleaned up a bit. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Koikefan. Joao is known for member of BoybandPH and his role as Lee Roi Gozon in He's Into Her AnsrieJames9 (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and develop further. Joao certainly has a career besides his membership in the band. This is the best opportunity to improve on his individual aspects and career beyond the band before the article is reverted to a redirect. werldwayd (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Werldwayd: Thank you for your input. I have made some substantive changes to the article, as well as developed it further by integrating more information regarding his TV/film roles, as well as adding reliable external references/sources. Hopefully this addresses most of the outstanding issues with the article.Koikefan (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NACTOR per above arguments. SBKSPP (talk) 00:54, 3 August 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) 15:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bardiya Academy[edit]

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

Oh schools, you rabbit warren of wikipedia notability. This is not about the copyvio, which could be rev-del'ed. What it is about is a school whose source is blogspot and for whom I can find no information to verify its existence, let alone notability. Their About Us was unfortunately not archived, so there is literally no information on which to build an article. As a private school, I am unable to ID a merge target. Star Mississippi 17:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only thing I can find to verify it's existence is a Facebook page, beyond that nothing. No evidence of any notability, Fails NSCHOOL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, there is nothing to go on here. Tacyarg (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - did not find enough to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think we really need to start imposing the orgainzational notability guidlines on all schools. School articles have become too much of an unending source of unsourced and low quality sourced material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only source appears to be a blogspot blog; I'm not convinced the school ever existed. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:03, 31 July 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Savage (director)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:FILMMAKER. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. Short mention about him in local media, [26][27][28], but not enough to establish notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:22, 29 July 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Alan Holt[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Fails GNG. Article also appears to have been created as an autobiography. See Jammyholt (talk · contribs). – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 17:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 17:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 17:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 17:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 17:12, 29 July 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bhargavacharitham Moonam Khandam[edit]

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

Non notable film, appears to fail WP:NFILM as only 1 reliable review was found in a WP:BEFORE (Sify) that could help support. At least 2 are needed. There are 3 reviews in the article, but according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force, only the Sify one is reliable. The other 2 are not. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DonaldD23 talk to me 16:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The selective quoting of Afd best practices while flouting Afd norms is interesting. Please read WP:AFD, or more specifically the checks to be done before nominating at WP:BEFORE, the 4th section of which lists the requirement to search for additional sources. WP:ICTFFAQ which you quote includes Rediff as a reliable source and a cursory search would have yielded this - [29] thereby meeting the requirement of 2 mainstream reviews. Please therefore refrain from jumping the gun when your PROD fails and look for sources before nominating for deletion. Jupitus Smart 05:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With two full reviews at Rediff and Sify, it meets the requirements of NFILM. -- Ab207 (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: passes WP:NFILM per WP:NFO -- DaxServer (talk) 15:31, 5 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoar, Delaware[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, this was never anything more than the Zoar Church, an early Methodist congregation now housed in a much more recent building. There is a state historical marker, but there's no settlement, and the spot has no labels at all until relatively recently on the topos, though the church itself shows up all the way back to 1917. Perhaps the church itself might merit an article, but that is not this article. Mangoe (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dublin Hill, Delaware. Dough4872 22:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mangoe, you are doing important work, and it needs to continue. That being said, it's been fairly easy to source this article using Newspaper Archive and Google Books, and I may try to find some additional sources tomorrow. According to my research, Zoar Church actually dates to the 1700s, according to several sources, although it is now on its third building. The references to the Zoar church are in the hundreds, and tend to drown out references to the place, but they are there: NewspaperArchive has several articles which mention people living "in Zoar" or "near Zoar". Books like this have been calling Zoar a settlement since at least 1966 (that's the earliest I've been able to find, but there may be earlier references). And Google maps shows there are houses within 300 feet of the church, despite your position that there is no settlement, only a church. Per WP:NPLACE, "Cities and villages anywhere in the world are generally kept, regardless of size or length of existence, as long as that existence can be verified through a reliable source." Wikipedia is a gazetteer in addition to being an encyclopedia, which is why we have articles on communities. Because this project is WP:NOTPAPER, here's no reason to delete this article on a community noted as being a populated place and which appears as a community on on local government maps in addition to US Geological Survey sources. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Populated place", as has been noted many times before, is first of all a fairly broad classification, and second, is frequently incorrectly marked in GNIS. And the problem here is the characterization of this as a village or the like appears to be unfounded. It's not just that it takes reasoning to get from "there were people reported as from X" to "X is a settlement"; it's that the reasoning often enough is refuted by reality. And yes, there are houses there now, as there are houses nearly everywhere in Delaware these days, but all of those houses are relatively recently built, save the farmhouse west of the church. Aerials even as recently as the 1980s show that framstead, the church, and no village/town/settlement around them, just a crossroads. Mangoe (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I've occasionally seen errors in GNIS, and it's possibly reasonable to want additional verification that this is a community, the Delaware Place Names source additionally confirms (on page 122) that this is a settlement; this contradicts your AFD rationale, that there is no settlement here, only a church. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:09, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firsfron: - While I have no comment on the above article because I haven't gotten around to researching it yet, I will note that GNIS's "populated place" is rather error-prone. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fish Pond, Kentucky which was about a GNIS "populated place" or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hartle Ford, Missouri also a populated placed in the GNIS. Mayflower, Imperial County, California was PRODded so there's no discussion, but it turned out to be an instance where the name of a canal went past a place on a map, and GNIS interpreted the name of the canal as referring to the map point. So when GNIS is wrong, it's often spectacularly wrong. Hog Farm _Talk 02:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the rationales above and the existing coverage. BuySomeApples (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep satisfactorily referenced.17:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep, as it is a populated place, and thus passes WP:NGEO.Jackattack1597 (talk) 11:04, 5 August 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 14:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Media Show[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The only sources currently cited are from BBC and The Guardian, neither of which are independent because BBC produces the podcast and one of the hosts has worked for The Guardian. Searching online only yields trivial mentions. The show doesn’t appear to have won any awards so there is no way that it qualifies for WP:WEBCRIT, and any claim that the show meets WP:RPRGM should take into account that it is an essay and even the essay states that “the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone.” The hosts might pass WP:GNG, but the show does not WP:INHERIT that notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I lean toward a keep. The Guardian is an RSP-greenlit source with an editorial firewall, which I highly doubt would be compromised just since one of the hosts used to work for them. And they're cited three times, which technically counts only once but IAR counts for something. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 17:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Guardian is an independent source. I accept that the article needs more independent sources although there's nothing wrong with using BBC Press Office articles as sources. Rillington (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this semes like very much stretching the definition of "not independant". Artw (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Guardian is considered "generally reliable" according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Agreed with above commenters that suggesting The Guardian isn't independent in this case is a stretch. NemesisAT (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG per above argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:06, 3 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saulsbury Switch, Delaware[edit]

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

The first stop in Delaware "communities" is this obvious rail spot which on the oldest topos is labelled "Spicer Siding". There is never anything else here besides the siding until relatively recently when on building goes up next to the tracks, so this is pretty clearly not a notable settlement, or for that matter a settlement at all. Mangoe (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect > Georgetown, Delaware, of which is part in accordance with Wikipedia:GEOLAND and Wikipedia:Alternatives to deletion. Djflem (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The location isn't in Georgetown, and even so, I don't think we should be redirecting locations to articles that aren't going to talk about them. Mangoe (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. newspapers.com and the GNIS imagery suggest that there is a non-notable housing development possibly named "The Village at Saulsbury Switch," located just north of the GNIS location. Newspapers.com had little coverage, all of it non-notable, though someone was stunned by lightning. GBooks had nothing notable, not even mention of a railroad siding. A 1966 USGS publication states that this is a "locale", though in 2021 the GNIS entry has it as a "populated place". Newspapers.com had nothing for "Spicer siding". GBooks had three hits for "Spicer siding", all for locations elsewhere. I did not have much luck searching for "Messick", which GNIS lists as an alternative name. As this location is not legally recognized it does not meet #1 of WP:GEOLAND and as it has almost no coverage, all of it very trivial #2 of WP:GEOLAND is also not met. I don't think that redirecting to Georgetown is appropriate as per Mangoe. Cxbrx (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dublin Hill, Delaware. Dough4872 22:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Cxbrx here. I'm getting passing mentions for a similarly-named, but apparently distinct modern subdivision, as well as the old publication calling it a locale (which is by definition not a formal community). Apparently had alternate names of Spicer Siding and Messick, but Messick is just bringing up local politicians and I can find literally nothing about a place known as Spicer Siding. Do not redirect to Georgetown. This is a distinct locale, and redirecting there would be misleading. Hog Farm _Talk 22:41, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are a lot of non-notable neighborhood articles in Delaware that need to be prodded or bulk deleted, and this needs more significant coverage for notability. Reywas92^Talk 14:19, 30 July 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. A single recreation is typically not enough to justify WP:SALTing. RL0919 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Carty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page should be WP:G4 eligible in my opinion. Speedy deletion was declined on the basis that Carty signed for Bangor City. Since they do not play in a fully pro league, all the same reasons for deletion from the last AfD still apply. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT, nothing has changed IMHO, still non-notable and unlikely to be any time soon. Giant Snowman 18:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 18:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with WP:SALT - still fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage located within the article nor in searches Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:15, 30 July 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 Kraven the Hunter. No evidence of standalone notability has been presented, and little discussion of what content is merge-worthy; if such content exists, it can be rescued from the page history Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kraven the Hunter (Alyosha Kravinoff)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There appears to be no coverage of this version of the character in reliable sources. TTN (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:Comment: Can’t the three offsprings / incarnations of Kraven the Hunter be merged to Kraven the Hunter? They are practically another version of Kraven. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 13:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MY vote is the same as my comment suggestion. To redirect or merge to Kraven the Hunter#Family. I purpose we can do the same with Grim Hunter and Kraven the Hunter (Ana Kravinoff) as I dont see them as any more or less notable. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 06:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kraven the Hunter which is a natural redirect target. Don't see sources for this version that would pass GNG. Rhino131 (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kraven the Hunter per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kraven the Hunter per above. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kraven the Hunter#Family, where he is already described. Any potential merging can be performed from this article's history, if needed. Rorshacma (talk) 15:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as appropriate to the Kraven the Hunter#Family section, Redirect there if all salient points have truly been covered. Artw (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kraven the Hunter. There does not appear to be significant coverage from third-party, reliable sources, but this could be a useful redirect for any readers interested in the character (although I must admit I am uncertain if users would really type this entire thing out and I think Alyosha Kravinoff would be good on its own as the redirect). Aoba47 (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kraven the Hunter unless sources/arguments are presented demonstrating stand-alone notability (which is not visible in the current article, nor in my BEFORE). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kraven the Hunter per the suggestions of other editors. Haleth (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the family section of Kraven the Hunter in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. In my note to the closer, could you see to it that his bio gets placed in the sub-section there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Dazzler (Marvel Comics). ✗plicit 12:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lois London[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. There doesn't appear to be any coverage in reliable sources. TTN (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dazzler (Marvel Comics) per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dazzler (Marvel Comics) unless sources/arguments are presented demonstrating stand-alone notability (which is not visible in the current article, nor in my BEFORE). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 31 July 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 Materialscientist (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karsgaard[edit]

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

Non-notable surname. No article titles contain this name, so not suitable for retooling as a disambig. Also, that stuff about holders of the Scottish throne doesn't accord with the article so that part appears to be a hoax. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I looked at this when it was at PROD recently, particularly at its total lack of consistency with the names and dates in the List of Scottish monarchs article and with the Clan Cameron article. I can see why the dePROD was done, but it is disappointing that it has lingered. All this stuff about "Stewart the I" (or "Stewart the II" in the initial article) and "Andrew the V" (whoever they might have been?) has been replicated into the nl.wiki and into various mirrors. I thought perhaps there might have been some Pretender or whatever, but nothing in the the Clan Cameron article supports that either. In the absence of any solid references, this looks like no more than longstanding hoax content. AllyD (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per above and no mention in Black's The Surnames of Scotland. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above Sahaib (talk) 11:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even though this seems to be the high point of the editorial achievements of this article's creator, it seems utterly unhelpful and would be best deleted. Thincat (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non referenced, probably hoax. I just searched in Google and I found no references to the article. Dede2008 (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to New X-Men. ✗plicit 12:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Match (Marvel Comics)[edit]

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

Topic fails WP:GNG. The character seems to have no real coverage in reliable sources. TTN (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to New X-Men per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New X-Men per above. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New X-Men unless sources/arguments are presented demonstrating stand-alone notability (which is not visible in the current article, nor in my BEFORE). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with the other squads section of New X-Men since the Paragons are listed there. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:54, 2 August 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. Daniel (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Runze[edit]

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

Actor who fails WP:NACTOR, as he has only had a significant role in one notable production, and WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are some sources at zh:王潤澤, and I found others with a little searching: [30][31][32][33]. A more thorough search would probably find more. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Baidu Baike article of him is significantly more detailed and has 35 sources. I haven't done a detailed analysis yet but skimming through both Granger's and the Baiku sources they seem to show notability for this actor. Jumpytoo Talk 20:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 蒋双超 (2016-12-05). 赵光霞; 宋心蕊 (eds.). "《一年级》粉丝媒体看片会王润泽身世引观众飙泪" ["First Grade" fan media watching. Wang Runze's life experience drew audiences to tears]. zh:深圳晚报 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-07-30. Retrieved 2021-07-30 – via People's Daily.
  From Google Translate: "After the episodes of the show were broadcast, the emotions of the fans and the media on the scene seemed to be immersed in Wang Runze's embarrassing life experience. It turned out that Wang Runze, whose family was in distress, had been dependent on his grandmother since 8 months, and lived a frugal life by relying on her grandmother to pick up waste products. Now he is alone in the entertainment circle, and his grandmother is already over eighty years old."
2. 吴亚雄; 林露 (2016-12-05). "用塑料袋装钱买衣服 "一年级"王润泽成励志榜样" [Using plastic bags to store money to buy clothes. In "First Grade", Wang Runze became an inspirational example]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-07-30. Retrieved 2021-07-30.
  From Google Translate: "The student Wang Runze is a special 'net celebrity'. His parents divorced since he was a child, and he has been raised by his grandmother at the age of eight months. He became popular because his 79-year-old grandmother went to accompany him during the college entrance examination, and was recorded in Hunan Satellite TV's My Documentary with Reading. Later, Wang Runze was admitted to Anqing Normal University with a high score, because his appearance was a bit related to the popular actor Hu Ge."
3. "王润泽《罪案心理小组X》开播完美诠释天才黑客" [Wang Runze's "Visible Lie" is on air. Perfect interpretation of genius hackers]. 中国娱乐网 (in Chinese). 2018-11-23. Archived from the original on 2021-07-30. Retrieved 2021-07-30.
  The article notes: "It is reported that Wang Runze was well-known as an observer in the reality show "First Grade Graduation Season", and then starred in such wonderful dramas as "The King of Personal School Flowers". This summer, he played the role of "Tianye" in the hit drama "Meteor Garden" and received a lot of praise. This time, he starred in "Crime Psychology Group X" and took another important step on the road of acting. Looking forward to Wang Runze's new drama "Crime Psychology Group X" to bring us more surprises!"
4. "《超级企鹅联盟》火热来袭满分男孩王润泽金球致胜" ["Super Penguin League" hits hot. Perfect score boy Wang Runze wins the golden ball]. 中国娱乐网 (in Chinese). 2020-09-21. Archived from the original on 2021-07-30. Retrieved 2021-07-30.
  From Google Translate: "At the same time, new dramas by mango entertainment artist Wang Runze are also continuously filming. After the youth school drama "Don't bother me to study" was finished, he joined the sweet pet costume drama "I can't afford this girl" without stopping, and starred in the male number one. The costumed Wang Runze will become the young master Yang Xiao this time. , To create a sweet and colorful legend. Let us look forward to more brilliant performances by Wang Runze!"
5. 任芯仪 (2020-11-23). "古装奇幻爱情网剧《倾世锦鳞谷雨来》定档11.28 何花王润泽开启高甜"人龙绝恋"" [Costume fantasy love web drama "Eternal Love Rain" is finalized on 11.28. He Hua and Wang Runze open the sweet "long queue of unrequited love"]. Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-07-30. Retrieved 2021-07-30.
6. 刘文思 (2019-05-14). "王润泽《初恋那件小事》杀青还原青春中心动男友模样" [Wang Runze's "A Little Thing Called First Love" is finished. Restoring the appearance of a boyfriend in the centre of youth]. Beijing Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-07-30. Retrieved 2021-07-30.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Wang Runze (simplified Chinese: 王润泽; traditional Chinese: 王潤澤; pinyin: Wáng Rùnzé) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG – Thanks to Cunard for showing new references. There is now no justification whatsoever for this article to be deleted. Dear Cunard, pls add these good ref to article. Thanks VocalIndia (talk) 10:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) TipsyElephant (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SF Signal[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. There are some trivial mentions of the blog in some sources like this Slate article, but I couldn’t find anything in-depth that would demonstrate significant coverage. I’m unsure whether LocusMag is independent or reliable. For instance, they’ve posted updates about the status of the SF Signal website which isn’t necessarily bad, but seems rather specific and involved for such a small website. A lot of the posts don’t even say who the author is and it appears that anyone can submit a blog, book, or podcast for review. It also appears that the magazine’s website has republished/hosted content from SF Signal's website here. It appears that “SF Signal” is a term used in science so a lot of WP:GHITS come from science websites that have nothing to do with the blog and trying to search Google Scholar is a nightmare. It might be possible to claim that the blog passes WP:WEBCRIT because it won an award, but WEBCRIT asserts that anything meeting its requirements should generally still have some coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawn by nominator" I was expecting this to be a relatively uncontroversial deletion, but WP:WEBCRIT appears to hold significantly different amounts of weight among different editors and different awards. I'll refrain from opening any AfDs for a while and reread documentation relevant to deletions. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This won three Hugo Awards, one of the most major awards one can win in sci-fi and fantasy, as well as a fairly prestigious award overall in literature as a whole. It's kind of like the Oscars of the sci-fi and fantasy world, which is why efforts by groups such as the Sad Puppies to hijack the awards gained so much attention. It also won an award from SFX magazine, which is a well-known and respected genre magazine. Locus Magazine is independent of SF Signal, although they did host the podcast. As far as how their submissions go, not anyone could submit something - it had to go through an editorial and factchecking process. It wasn't like a random person could write something and then have it posted by the next day, without any barriers to publication. It's part of why the site is usable as a RS on Wikipedia. Now as far as the science term goes, there is a hatnote at the top of the page for anyone who may be looking for the specific science term. Possible other ways to resolve the science term point is to create a redirect for SF signal that goes to the term or to disambiguate the website article along the lines of "SF Signal (website)" and put a hatnote at the top of the science term's page.

There could be more coverage on the article itself, but notability is pretty clearly established by way of the awards. The lack of other coverage on the page doesn't mean that an article shouldn't exist or that other coverage doesn't exist, just that it likely hasn't been added yet. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(As an aside, it was nominated for Hugo Award for Best Fancast in the first two years of the award's existence (2012, 2013) before winning in its third nomination year (2014). In those two years (2012,2013) which were the only years in which it was nominated, it also won the Hugo Award for Best Fanzine) Jclemens (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found info about why the podcasts are on Locus Online: they're archiving them. SFS closed up back in 2016 and as things are wont to do with online content, the link for the podcast eventually went dead. Locus Online offered to host the material so that it's still available. They weren't involved in the creation of the podcast or its running, they're just archiving the material. That a major publisher would consider the podcast worth preserving is a fairly big sign of notability in my opinion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SF Signal does appear in a number of secondary sources. And WP:WHYN tells us that WP:GNG is in place "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic". That is already the case as the article stands now, so I see no problem here. SF Signal has also repeatedly won a major award. That's a criterion to have an article aside from coverage in secondary sources according to Wikipedia:Notability (books) and Wikipedia:Notability (films). It is also a criterion in WP:WEBCRIT. Sure the phrasing there is "may be notable" and "should probably have an article", rather than "should have an article". But there's no problem whatsoever with verifiability, and the award has a Wikipedia page. And, in contrast, what would be the benefit for Wikipedia in not having this article, that would outweigh the guideline that says that we probably should have one? Daranios (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Daranios: I don't know if the article is much better than half a paragraph. There is less than 300 words of content. My deletion rationale is a comparable length to the article itself. I would consider the article a stub or start at best. TipsyElephant (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TipsyElephant: I don't say this is a long article, but I'd say it counts for at least a full paragraph. Test: If I had everything in straight text without section breaks and continued writing, would it be awkward for the reader? I'd definitely say yes. But if you are doubtful on that point, shouldn't we discuss about a merge rather than a deletion according to the WP:AtD/WP:ATD-M part of Wikipedia's deletion policy? Or in other words, what again would be the advantage of deletion for the reader? Daranios (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh, look Hugo Award for Best Fancast is a featured list. This is why a "What links here" is a good idea for part of WP:BEFORE. Oh, and WP:WEBCRIT #2 appears to be the relevant "has won a major award" article which apply to various forms of content. Jclemens (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: I was well aware that it won that award, which you would know if you read my rationale for deletion. I was actually looking into getting that article delisted or even deleted/merged, which is how I came across this stub of an article. Basing the notability of one article on the quality of another article also seems dubious. Would you argue that everything on the Hugo Award for Best Fancast list is notable enough for a stand-alone article simply because it won the award? TipsyElephant (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, your assertion of awareness is impeached by your nomination. That is, you did note an (unspecified) award win in your nomination statement, but the only interpretation of your actions consistent with AGF is that you do not understand how important the Hugo award is. The fact that you're apparently un-ironically asking if winning a Hugo makes every winner notable (it does) is inconsistent with your having enough knowledge of either science fiction as a genre or Wikipedia notability policies to reliably start appropriate AfDs. Look at what ReaderofthePack has already added, and withdraw this nomination, please. Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The contents of an article don't determine notability per WP:ARTN, but I'll take a look at the sources tomorrow and see if they have more than trivial mentions of the subject. TipsyElephant (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sorry but the conversation is taking this deeper and deeper into IDONTLIKEIT territory. Also WTF trying to get rid of the best fancast article? Artw (talk) 04:10, 30 July 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 12:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Ring[edit]

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

Non-notable film, lacking significant coverage from independent sources, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 12:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article lacks any reliable sources of any kind at all, which is way, way below our bare minimum requirements to have an article on a film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything that would establish notability. It doesn't seem to have gained much attention other than some mentions in passing in a few newspapers. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no indication that this meets any of the notability criteria for films and I found no significant independent coverage that proves to me that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 03:43, 5 August 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 sole source does not mention Tajb School, so there is nothing verifiable to merge. ✗plicit 09:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tajb school[edit]

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

Doesn't appear notable. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 07:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable primary school in Kerala. See WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES --Whiteguru (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Onel - no evidence of any notability, Fails NSCHOOL & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what little content there is here to Parli-I as a WP:ATD NemesisAT (talk) 12:27, 30 July 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. Sandstein 06:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Ratio Entertainment[edit]

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

References are PR, passing mentions, or similar. Fails WP:NCORP and is pure WP:ADMASQ.

Has been draftified once, I would have done so again but that woudld be move warring. Suggest the outcome is not to re-draftify Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the user who created this article and moved it back from draftspace (twice) appears to be a single-purpose account editing only this article and those of the artists under management by Cross Ratio Entertainment. I've left ((uw-coi)) on their talk page in case they do have a conflict of interest and are unaware of what they should be doing. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 07:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article describing an entertainment management company, with content describing their roster, supported by a variety of PR items, some with passing mentions, one of which only mentions the owner but not this firm, and content carried on the firm's Facebook. A firm going about its business but I am not seeing evidence that encyclopaedic notability has been attained. AllyD (talk) 07:15, 30 July 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 detailed source analysis is persuasive and has not been convincingly rebutted. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:26, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Burnett[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced for years, not notable blp. Ratnahastin(t.c) 13:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in a minute or so, I found a good number of news articles that show a pass of WP:GNG. This is an example of where editing is the answer, not deletion. Examples: All About Jazz, JazzIz, KCUR 89.3, Salt Lake Tribune, and Fox 4 KC... and more.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Paul McDonald sources seem good, but they should be added to the article. Kevin19781 (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Kevin19781 and Paul McDonald while most of these sources indeed appear good at a glance, with all due respect a closer study after clicking the links and reading the content, I doubt any of these five examples provide coverage that meet wikipedia standards as significant.  

All About Jazz is a website that printed (and credits) this subject’s own business’s press release.

JazzIz Is potpourri of weekly roundup jazz news items that name checks the man as the instructor for an upcoming jazz music “boot camp.”

[34] Not an article about him, but about a music venue in the museum where he coincidently works as the marketing manager. The only mention of him is where he is quoted with a comment about the venue—there is nothing significant about a reporter quoting the onsite person in charge of PR.

Fox 4 KC Much like the previous one, this article is not about this person. Chris Burnett is quoted only in his role as the article subject's former teacher and marketing director of the local jazz museum. And the subject of this article is his nephew!

[35] This is the only one, IMO, that comes close to being independent coverage, but it’s a brief, fairly run-of-the-mill listing for public radio for an upcoming appearance, written by a contributor who blogs about the local jazz scene. It’s not particularly weighty.

This subject may yet be proven as a notable person in the local Kansas City jazz scene with more searches for references (I may do it if I find time), but I don’t think wikipedia notability is backed up by any of these references presented here. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Likely meets notability based on the number and quality of sources, though I am concerned by the two jazz sources not seeming remotely reliable.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For a further review of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments detailed above, where I found none of the sources an editor suggested be added met RS criteria.

I promised I would do a deeper search if I had time. A google of this subject’s name + Jazz + Kansas City reveals many similar hits noted in the keep votes above. These range from event announcements to name checks within the larger local jazz community—all of which are to be expected of someone who, per his Linkedin page [36], is a multifaceted self-employed jazz entrepreneur who runs his own jazz awareness non-profit company that sees him wearing many hats:, instructor, band camp organizer, vanity recording label owner, jazz museum CEO, music store owner, etc. In all these capacities he is his own marketer, and every reference I found seemed to originate in some way or another from his own efforts. Other editors made this same observation in the first AfD discussion.

The keep votes above state the article can be saved by drawing from these many references. Indeed, there are plenty that fall in this promotional, run-of-the-mill music scene announcements that appear in both reliable and non-reliable sources. But where among them is significant third party coverage that could actually be sourced for a wikipedia article? I made a genuine search to find at least one example and thought I may have found it in this magazine: [37] It’s a lengthy article by an independent author overseen by an editorial staff. But then I investigated the publication a bit more. The magazine seems to be little more than a networking publication of the local arts foundation, containing similar types of articles/profiles on professionals who support the organization. Mr. Burnett’s non-profit is listed among the hundreds of voluntary contributing supporters of this endeavour. In other words, become a “partner” and we’ll write an article about your business in our magazine.

As near as I can tell, the subject of this article is very adept at “tooting his own horn” (as one would expect from a saxophonist!) with unchallenged peacock verbiage (“internationally recognized”, “worldwide audience” from when he toured with the Army band) to inflate his resume highlights. His efforts have found their way into numerous lengthy encyclopedic entries in user submitted jazz musician databases, including this wikipedia article, which was significantly trimmed during the prior, non-consensus AfD discussion, where the saving defense seem to come from COI editors and unregistered SPA editors (possibly himself?)

In reality, this subject is just one of thousands of successful working musicians. No doubt very good and admired, But when you shave away the cruff, all we are left with is a decorated career veteran of the Army band; returned home after his service and established himself respectably and successfully in his profession. That’s all well and good, but there’s nothing extraordinary in this, nor is it encyclopedic worthy. ShelbyMarion (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:23, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Firstly, the text of the article itself is describing the subject's youth and military career: I have no comment/expertise on whether his career and medals may contribute to WP:BIO notability. The subject's post-service musical career is missing from the article, but could perhaps be filled out from some of the sources discussed above - but are they indicating notability, or simply in-role quotes from the various endeavours involving the subject? Regarding AllAboutJazz as a source, it is important to recognise that it has two aspects: bylined articles and reviews on the one hand, which are solid and usable to support articles here, but on the other hand reproducing PR profiles etc.; unfortunately their content on this subject falls into the latter aspect. I broadly agree with ShelbyMarion's analyses above and am not seeing evidence of the subject meeting the WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria. AllyD (talk) 08:29, 29 July 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. SNOW keep Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As with other recent Pokemon articles nominated for deletion, the Reception section of Bulbasaur is almost entirely trivial coverage from listicles regurgitated as minor quotes. It fails WP:GNG and does not demonstrate standalone notability. Standards have clearly changed dramatically from when it was a Featured Article, but right now it's essentially pure Wikia/FANDOM material.

There are several articles from gaming sites about Bulbasaur, but they are largely meme-y and more humorous in nature than attempting to dive deep into the Pokemon's design and creation. "Bulbasaur is pretty cool! He does stuff like Vine Whip! Underrated!" _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's listed as the very first Pokemon, in the first generation of games - so I think that it is particularly notable. It's my opinion that all Gen 1 starters at least should have their own page, or at least a merged page for all three. Regardless, like you said, there's a lot of trivial information around these pages and some clean-up clearly needs to be done. Kettleonwater (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I will chip in that I don't see the point in a separate article for Venusaur, however. Kettleonwater (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Being #1 in the Pokedex does not mean it's one of the first Pokemon created. Actually, Rhydon was the first Pokemon ever designed, #112. We don't have an article for Rhydon. The Pokedex number pretty much means nothing. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A recently developed consensus in the AfD's for Pokemon characters indicate that many editors are not in favour of keeping standalone articles which discuss two or more Pokemon which are either interconnected as co-mascots of a particular generation or as an aggregated evolutionary line. The sole remaining article of that nature, Abra, Kadabra, and Alakazam, appears to be on the verge of being restructured to just Kadabra. Haleth (talk) 02:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are demanding that every Pokemon in those combined articles be able to stand alone as notable. That is very much not the case for Abra, Kadabra and Alakazam, and similarly Ivysaur isn't notable either. (I heavily doubt Venusaur is either, the reception section is barely-there). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:00, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's definitely a horrible amount of trash in the reception section, but this feels like something that should probably go through discussion analyzing which sources to remove and which sources to keep. After it has been trimmed down to at least acceptable content, then deciding whether the remaining sources are sufficient would be a good idea. TTN (talk) 12:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As much as I've generally supported the paring down of many of these individual Pokémon articles, this ones going too far. There's a lot of crap to trim out of the reception article (or to streamline at least.) But this ones an iconic character from a long-running series. I refuse to believe that there's not a handful of sources in existence. I'll do some digging if pressed, but this feels right up there with the platinum selling song article nominations because an editor couldn't find a handful of sources online - they're generally snow-kept before the digging even begins. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"I believe it's iconic" can apply to most Gen 1 Pokemon. Iconic does not necessarily mean notable, however. The article utilizes heavy WP:REFBOMBing in order to make itself seem more notable than it really is. When one tries to find the actual sources they are mostly left wanting for any depth. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I acknowledged the refbombing, I just don't believe your claim that a cleanup effort would whittle it down to nothing. And I'm not wasting my time looking for sourcehunting for a misguided nomination that's heading for an obvious keep result. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:BURDEN is on people to prove it's notable, not on the AfD nominator to prove it isn't. You are misunderstanding the process. No matter how "misguided" it is, people must still present evidence it's clearly notable. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:34, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of the process, I've been involved in it for over a decade. You're misunderstanding me. If it's a close call, I'll gladly change my tune and do some sourcehunting to persuade people to save the article. I'm just saying I'm not working on saving an article that isn't in any real danger to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 18:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are admitting that your "keep" vote has no basis in evidence? Why even put forth the vote, then? If I had a hunch something was notable and wasn't sure, I'd usually leave a comment instead, but not put my full weight behind a keep vote with no proof. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not saying that either. If you're going to do such a terrible job trying to paraphrase my stance, don't bother. I'm saying your nomination is so bad that I don't feel it will require extensive source hunting to save it. It lacks common sense. To think that a globally known character that was once named one of the mascots of FIFA 14 isn't going to have a handful of write ups about it is ludicrous. Exceeding bad judgment call on this one, all around. And the current trajectory of the discussion shows it. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That very much seems like picking and choosing what you want people to hear. According to the actual article: Pikachu has been named Japan’s official mascot for the 2014 World Cup, and will be accompanied by several other notable Pokemon, including Charmander, Bulbasaur, Squirtle, Chespin, and more. Bulbasaur was just one of the numerous side characters with Pikachu being the actual mascot. And this isn't a debate about how notable Pikachu is, since it obviously is. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Im not exactly sure what hair you're trying split here. What exactly is the difference between "mascot character for FIFA" and "characters alongside with mascot character". Like, what exactly do you see mascot characters and characters along for the ride being different in the scale of an event like this? The operative word wasn't "mascot", it was "involvement with a major global sporting event". Sergecross73 msg me 20:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Link20XX (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Keep While the article does have a lot of listicles and all the Keep !votes above are WP:SOURCESEXIST or WP:ITSIMPORTANT, these three articles (1, 2, 3) do give it significant coverage. Link20XX (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2021 (UTC) Update: I have given this some thought, and am changing my Weak Keep to Keep. I agree with Sergecross73 and (Oinkers42). As for Czar, since there currently is no SNG for fiction (which there should be IMO), the only standard to go by is GNG, which doesn't have anything requiring how the sources cover it at all, just that they cover it. Link20XX (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first article of the three is the only one you can truly, IMO, argue that it is significant coverage. The second is more of a humor piece "arguing" that Bulbasaur is the best Pokemon because the author says so. The third is more about the @Bulbaganda Twitter feed than about Bulbasaur itself. Just because a Pokemon is numbered #1 in the Pokedex does not imply immediate notability, Pikachu is #25 so number really means very little. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about Pokédex numbering, because I agree it has nothing to do with notability. I guess you are right about the third source but I disagree on the second. It is from a reliable source, and it does give in-depth coverage. Just because it has a less serious tone doesn't change that. Link20XX (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no real argument in the 2nd article. It's literally just goofy humor and makes no sense to put forward as evidence of notability. "If Bulbasaur is a 10/10, every other Pokémon is a solid 9.9/10. Except Exeggcute. A more appropriate name for Exeggcute would be Knockoff R.L. Stine Cover." Like, I can get a humorous article that also actually puts forth an indepth analysis, but this article makes no attempt to, instead joking about how various things that are weaker about Bulbasaur are actually the creators' attempts at giving you philosophical life-lessons. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything that states it must have an argument? This is sounding like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. Link20XX (talk) 18:15, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original starter Pokemon are by far my favorite in the series, so it's absolutely not an issue of IDONTLIKEIT. I don't understand what's such a sin about wanting articles about things you like to actually be a quality article. And that goes hand in hand with passing GNG and being able to get substantive information. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears my comment is being misinterpreted below, I will clarify. I was referring to you and the source, not the Pokémon itself. For the record, Arceus is one of my favorite Pokémon and I tagged it with notability. Link20XX (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably enjoy the article as an amusing diversion if I was stumbling upon it while reading the webpage. In a "yeah, seriously, why IS Bulbasaur so underrated"? kind of way. But as a source of serious criticism, used in this context, I think it doesn't pass muster. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While Wikipedia should probably not become a Pokedex covering Pokemon that have iconic status outside of the franchise seems entirely valid. Artw (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This smells like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and to me. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, it's not an IDONTLIKEIT issue. Quite the opposite, actually. Besides, ad hominem arguments don't hold any weight when there is no evidence as such. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If original starters were your favorite, you would not have listed Bulbasaur for AfD. Leanne Sepulveda (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  You are conflating AfD with "hating" something, which is quite not the case. I can like something and still think that the article on it is poor quality and maybe should not exist on Wikipedia. After all, Bulbapedia does an excellent job, far better than Wikipedia could hope to do on the subject, so it's not like it's eradicating Pokemon from the face of the planet. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Also, you can tell from the 3 previous nom's of Bulbasaur that the notability has been an issue in the past. In the previous nomination, largely unreliable sources were used to justify keeping it, of the sort that wouldn't be typically used on Wikipedia today _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first 2 AfD noms, from the early decade of Wikipedia, were clearly malformed or badly made/closed which has no instructive value on the subject's notability. The 3rd one was contentious, but the closer made it clear that deletion was never a viable outcome from that discussion and that a merge and redirect proposal may have more weight as a consensus. Haleth (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of generation I Pokémon#Bulbasaur. Let's take Link's three sources, which I believe demonstrate an important distinction: significant coverage is whether we have enough quality material to write an article that does the topic justice without regressing to primary sources or original research; significant coverage is not simply invoking the topic's name in the headline. These three sources are about Bulbasaur but say nothing—they offer no original analysis for us to cite in any depth.
1. We cite Bulbasaur has been the best Pokémon all along, one of a series of essays about the legacy of Pokemon Red/Blue, as "Chris Plante of Polygon chose Bulbasaur as the best Pokemon all along" because that's all the article says in its 13 paragraphs. Similar to why we don't use listicles to signal noteworthiness, blog posts about "why a fictional character is 'the best'" have a bad track record for having any meaningful insight worthy of an encyclopedia. The article is jokey and unserious and I hope I don't need to quote it to show why.
2. We cite If You Don't Love Bulbasaur, 'Bulbasaur Propaganda' Might Change Your Mind as "Kotaku recommended to people who don't like Bulbasaur and their propaganda might check out twitter @BulbaGanda for arts, memes, and images to change mind", which again is a great summary of the article and additionally an excellent indicator of content that does not belong in an encyclopedia article. It is a Reddit post masquerading as a news article, offering no analysis beyond "look at these funny memes". There is no additional content here to explain anything about the Reception of Bulbasaur.
3. And Detective Pikachu helped me love a Pokémon I used to hate (i.e., Bulbasaur), cited as, "Polygon described Bulbasaur on Detective Pikachu as “unassuming and sweet,” a creature who makes a “lovable friend.” Again, what content are we meant to cite here to write an article that does justice to the independently notable depth of the topic? There's nothing beyond in-universe impact: That the character's portrayal made her reconsider her bias between starter Pokemon preferences has only incidental and no material impact on the Reception of the character. And that's a generous analysis because the article absolutely did not put it that way.

Because this is the best depth of coverage we've got, we're left with text that cobbles together numerous fluffy statements, each imparting little to nothing about the character or its significance. Which is why I'll once again say that if all sources really have to say is that sources say Bulbasaur is iconic as a starter Pokemon^[1]^[2] and is cute^[3]^[4], we can just as easily express the same content more eloquently with a single sentence and group refs within the list article. Significant coverage means not just being "about" the subject but having meaningful analytic substance we can cite. czar 19:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I think it would be useful to define "meaningful analytic substance" here. Do they have to have a personality or character arc to analyze, discounting obvious exceptions of mascots like Pikachu? Is this an inherent problem with all fictional species articles in your eyes? (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly isn't a guideline requirement under WP:GNG for "meaningful analytic substance" or anything akin to WP:ORGDEPTH for companies as a defining element of significant coverage. We can certainly argue for its inclusion as a requirement for a proposed SNG which specifically covers fictional characters and topics, but until then, it is opinion only. Haleth (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In less than a minute, I found a pretty lengthy source at https://screenrant.com/pokemon-bulbasaur-facts/ which was just very recently deemed reliable for entertainment subjects per WP:RSP so I'm really having some WP:BEFORE concerns here... Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per what CZAR said earlier, a listicle like that does not demonstrate any depth of coverage. Most of the entries within it are simply WP:TRIVIA about the anime or video games. One could write a similar article about any of the starters - or heck, any of the original 151 Pokemon. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just a "listicle entry", every single entry on the listicle is about Bulbasaur. Very different. I don't agree with yours or Czar's hand-waving away of these lengthy sources dedicated entirely to the subjects. You're setting the bar too high. There's enough here to write a short article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that people are stretching the definition of listicles to an absurd degree. Listicle is a term to denote an article that is not about the subject about which the source is being used to establish notability. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is this an out-of-season April's Fool joke? If you use search engine, there's more coverage you'll see about Bulbasaur, not all of them are trivial. It seems like this case is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and people are ignoring WP:NEXIST. Anonymous 00:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC) Blocked proxy. Link20XX (talk) 00:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG as noted above, article could to with rewriting however. Considering how old the character is a lot of the detailed coverage will be buried in old magazines. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 22:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other editors in this discussion have made it clear that WP:BEFORE, WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN has not been taken into consideration. Haleth (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Considering how many sources have been discussed and found, it definitely passes WP:GNG. Statements to the contrary are confusing and seem to take account for the personal opinion of the statement maker on a source over Wikipedia policy. Also, did someone seriously create a proxy to vote on a fictional character article's deletion? (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that sourcing is sufficient, if not severely outdated. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 22:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons I listed last time this was at AFD. This was a former featured article, linked to on the main page of the Wikipedia. The Reception and legacy section of the article, shows it gets ample coverage. Dream Focus 23:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that Link's and Serge's sourcing are sufficient to meet GNG. These types of articles are going to mainly be sourced by primary sources (the games or interviews), because they are the most authoritative source for fictional subjects. The sources used for notability sometimes can be sort of shoved into the article, and that's fine. The important part is that they show that Bulbasaur is an iconic character that has the notability for an article. Jumpytoo Talk 00:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Blatantly notable. The most basic of WP:BEFORE searches (or just looking at the references already in the article) easily demonstrates this. Even as somebody who has never played a Pokémon game or watched the television programme this character is instantly recognisable as an icon of modern popular culture that has received extensive coverage from reliable independent sources. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:44, 3 August 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. Sandstein 06:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Moses[edit]

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

WP:VANISPAMCRUFTISEMENT, This is a well disguised advert. Many of the references are regurgitated press releases, Playbills and PR material. This is WP:BOMBARD If it can be rescued, so be it, but adverts have no place on Wikipedia.

If being a TV talent show finalist confers notability then perhaps he has a little, but this article does not reflect that.

Does Moses even pass WP:NACTOR? Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 06:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this was new reviewer Doric Loon's accept so he might want to comment here. I am frustrated as I spent 90 minutes cleaning this up, only for the article's creator Classiclady76 to revert those changes, twice. I presume she is Moses' agent or has some other close connection and therefore should see WP:OWN, WP:COI and WP:PAID. If you look at Commons you'll see that her 369 edits there are all addition of images of Moses. Given her reverts, the article as it stands is therefore not in its best form and I haven't the motivation to unpick the mix of retrograde editing and addition of potentially useful references that Classiclady has added. The refbombing will make it difficult for an impartial reviewer to review the references for notability. If anyone wants to do that, probably best take a look at the last good version. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ClassicLady is an SPA account so WP:COI and WP:PAID more than likely apply. Checking of references shows primary sources, press releases and mentions. For this rising pantomime star, its WP:TOOSOON. Let him build his filmography and awards. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from accepting reviewer) I am indeed a relatively new AfC reviewer (but not new to Wikipedia). I accepted this on the basis of citations to newspapers, which when I followed the links did indeed deal primarily with the subject and have photos of him. But I was hesitant, because they were very small local newspapers (York Post etc.). I agree that the article gives more hype than his achievements merit, but I still think he is sufficiently in the public eye to be covered. On the other hand, if the suspicion of paid copywriting turns out to be true, I would see that differently. Certainly uncited claims like "...has also become a highly demanded brand spokesman..." are problematic. So if you think I made a wrong call, that's OK. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per a message on her talk page, ClassicLady claims to have no COI. She says she met him once. I will assume good faith. She said she was happy to see the article restored to how it was before her recent problematic edits so I have reverted to the last good version and re-applied the AfD etc. tags. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as Nominator: I will not be going through the welter of references again. For good or ill it is up for deletion discussion. I understand the joint frustrations of Curb Safe Charmer and Doric Loon. I think we now need to leave it in the hands of the community who will come to a conclusion, I hope. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 21:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. JSFarman (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, references all appear to rely on mentions-in-passing but nothing substantial with independent content. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:02, 3 August 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. Opinion is divided, but the WP:V concerns voiced by DMacks at the end are determinative. This article fails WP:V and WP:BLP because the association of these schools (and therefore the alumni) with the Congregation of Christian Brothers is not sourced. I checked a random example: "John F. Larkin, attorney general of Northern Ireland (Belfast) – St Mary's Christian Brothers' Grammar School, Belfast". There is no article for the school and no footnote associating that school with the religious movement (or indeed establishing that the school exists and that Larkin attended it). While individually that would be a cleanup issue, almost all entries have the same problem. There is only one sourced entry among dozens or hundreds. This mandates deletion of the entire article per WP:BLP. Sandstein 06:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Christian Brothers school alumni[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

An organization is affiliated with hundreds and hundreds of schools. It doesn't own them, they aren't franchises -- it's an affiliation. That affiliation can begin and end at any point in that school's history. This is a list of alumni of schools which happen to have had that affiliation, many of which have their own Wikipedia articles with duplicate lists of alumni. Not a valid cross-categorization. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SYNTH that fails WP:NLIST Qwaiiplayer (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree with the nominator and that this fails WP:SYNTH/WP:NLIST. The few people's articles that I looked at didn't even say they were an alumni of this place either. So the list is totally Indiscriminate OR on top of the other issues. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the exact same reasons laid out when I first nominated the article for deletion. This is a non notable cross categorisation of names. Ajf773 (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these schools are all part of a single chain, or brand, all connected with a single teaching order of monks, the Congregation of Christian Brothers. Note that we have an article List of alumni of Jesuit educational institutions, a similar set-up, and we could have such articles on a number of other orders, such as those in , and other . Also note Alliance Israélite Universelle#Notable alumni, the Alliance Israélite Universelle was a 19th century Paris-based chain of schools for Jewish children in Muslim countries, it was run out of Paris and taught a modern curriculum in French. If individual articles are inadequate they should be dealt with individually accordingly and that is not an argument to delete this whole article. This issue was thoroughly dealt with in the earlier discussion.Emendment (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not part of a chain/brand. The schools are not owned by the Christian Brothers; merely affiliated with and [at least partially] staffed by. That affiliation can begin after a school is founded and end at any time. That other similar stuff exists isn't a reason to keep this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  So what? They are all connected in some manner with the Christian Brothers whether that connection is historic or actual. All the following school are identified as Christian Brothers schools: Cardinal Newman College, Buenos Aires; Waverley College, Sydney; St Peter's College, Auckland; St Columba's School, New Delhi; and St Edward's College, Liverpool, or in schools in twenty other countries. Some of them were never owned by the Christian Brothers but they are all identified by that brand because at some point they were staffed by the Christian Brothers.04:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

So a staffing agency is notable because the company that they provide employees to is? (BTW, that has nothing to do with the notability of the connection between the Alumni in this and them either). --Adamant1 (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The word "charism" is often used for the style and mission of a religious order. It is not just a brand but a particular focus of the member's lives (they were monks living in monasteries and present at the school 24/7) and in the case of a teaching order like the Christian Brothers, their teaching style. No one argues that the Jesuits had their own charism which was immensely influential on those educated by them in the last 500 years. Its the same in the 200 years of the Christian Brothers founded to educate poor Irish boys. In his Annual principal's report for 1988 for St Peter's College, Auckland, Brother Prendergast described the characteristics of a Christian Brothers school as: the encouragement given to pupils to strive for scholastic excellence; a religious dimension; the cultivation of a strong devotion to the Virgin Mary; the emphasis given to the care and concern for each individual in the school community; and a particular concern for the poor. He also said that Christian Brothers' schools throughout the world had a remarkable similarity of purpose, spirit and tone. Also from the wikipedia article on St Peter's, Auckland: Monsignor Paul Farmer (a pupil 1960-1965), the chaplain of the college at various times from the 1970s and current chaplain in 2021, had a family connection with St Peter's going back to its opening in 1939, when his father was a first day pupil. Farmer has said, in praising the work of the Christian Brothers at St Peters, "The Brothers I think, created an extraordinary spirit - they laid the foundation for the school. They were good men, practical men, and very generous men with their talents and their lives." "There were only ever, in my early days here, one or two lay teachers as they were called then, and [the brothers] might have got only one free period a week. They had no car - I remember when I was here, the old boys and the PTA had a big fundraiser to buy the brothers a car. We can't imagine that today." "They ran the place on the smell of an oily rag - remember, 1939 was the year World War II started. They were difficult times, and these guys put their hearts and soul into the place. Everything was done by them - a broken window was fixed, the lawns were mowed, everything."Emendment (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I came here expecting to vote to delete this, but (annoyingly) I'm persuaded by the above reasoning. In particular, I note that there is a similar list for those educated by Jesuits, but this isn't a "foolish consistency" point: rather, I note that the Christian Brothers do have, and do seek to inculcate, a particular ethos or way of thinking and acting, just as the Jesuits do. Just as it's useful for readers to have access to a list of those educated by Jesuits - to "compare and contrast", if you like - so it's useful for readers to have access to similar lists for those educated in different traditions. I don't generally care for "list" articles, but they are a lot easier to read than working with tags, so I think I'm persuaded to Keep. RomanSpa (talk)
- The reason for deletion wasn't "other similar things don't exist" nor "there is no ethos associated with their teaching" but about our guidelines regarding lists and the required sourcing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- According to the NPOV filled citation above they cultivated a strong devotion to the Virgin Mary and mowed the lawns. I'd hardly that educating anyone about anything. Especially if your going to compare them to the Jesuits, who as far I'm aware actually have a Jesuit based educational curriculum that they teach in Jesuit schools. There's a big difference between that and some random guys who are mowing the lawn being like "Hey kids, the Virgin Mary is cool..or whatever." --Adamant1 (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - The spirit and approach are the important things and the Christian Brothers' education curriculum (yes they had one) seems to have produced a lot of very accomplished people - look at the list.Emendment (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Spirit and approach (whatever that means) aren't important to this AfD, multiple reliable sources that connect to the Christian Brothers to the Alumni is, but sure lets keep articles becuase of spirit. Whatever. Anyway, the Christian Brothers didn't produce those (questionably accomplished) people. Their hardwork (probably more privilege) as aided by the schools they went to did. Both of which the Christian Brothers had an extremely minor role in. Adamant1 (talk) 10:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - The point is the schools were or are operated by a Catholic religious order. Wouldn't you expect them to promote the catholic faith in their schools including the Catholic doctrines relating to the Virgin Mary etc? Also should all lists of alumni attached to wiki pages for the schools now be deleted since no students are influenced by their teachers? How ridiculous is that? Also if this page is deleted the Jesuit one and all the others would have to be deleted as well.Emendment (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - And? Their promotion of faith to the Virgin Mary wasn't what "produced a lot of very accomplished people" though. Which is what you were claiming. Otherwise, point out any article on this list that wasn't COI edited (or otherwise screwed with) that even mentions the Christian Brothers as an influence on the person's career. Also, Jesuit's aren't relevant because people call themselves Jesuit and associated themselves with other Jesuits. For instance there's List of Jesuits. Whereas, no one on this list associates with the Christian's Brothers and there is no List of Christian Brothers. There isn't a List of Jesuit school alumni either to even be deleted in the first place. It's really odd that you don't know that when you brought up the Jesuit article being deleted if this one is. It's also odd that you don't understand the difference between the two orders and how people associate with them. Since you seem to be semi-knowledgeable about the topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - Adamant1 is right, the education of alumni is primarily related to the school they went to. All those schools (presumably all) already have a list of notable alumni. Linking them to the religious affiliation those schools are related to and bundling every single entry into one list is a cross-categorisation. The primary contributor to this list article, and also the one vehemently defending the article, has offered nothing in the way of independent secondary sources to accompany this article to make it even a remotely notable topic. Effectively, all this list serves is a massive puff piece for the Congregation of Christian Brothers. Ajf773 (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a "puff piece" - there isn't much in the way of fancy words or attempts at persuasion. What there is is a list of information, compiled in a convenient form for users of this encyclopedia. I think this is a useful contribution to Wikipedia: it provides a convenient articulation of information that researchers and other interested parties would otherwise have to assemble afresh each time they wished to study the topic. Maybe the Christian Brothers are influential on their students, or maybe they're not. Maybe they're ultimately inconsequential in their impact on society, or maybe they turn out to be secretly running a massive worldwide conspiracy to introduce Marianism to the entire planet. With this helpfully collated information, users of this encyclopedia can more easily start to work out the answers to these questions themselves; without it, understanding, one way or the other, becomes more difficult. I think we're here to help our readers understand the world, and this list can help that. RomanSpa (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Putting aside 99% of your message that has absolutely nothing to do with the AfD, 100% acting like there's a meaningful or notable connection between the people on the list and the Christian Brothers is an attempt at persuasion. Otherwise, point out one single article on this list that hasn't been COI edited (or otherwise screwed with) that shows a connection (meaningful or not) between the person in the article and the Christian Brothers. Let alone one that says the person is an alumni of a Christian Brothers school. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New (or perhaps restated in a different way) point. I'm grateful to Adamant1 for (perhaps inadvertently) drawing our attention to a key point, where they introduce the concept of "acting like there's a meaningful or notable connection between people on the list". I think this phrase makes the point we're discussing clear: if there is a meaningful or notable connection between people on the list, then the list is something more than the sum of its parts. As Emendment has already noted, the Christian Brothers do have a "charism" - an ethos, if you like - and they do try to apply this. A moment's Googling allowed me to find a variety of academic papers and independent research supporting this here, here, here, and here, for example. Academic researchers are able to identify and discuss commonalities in the Christian Brothers' educational approach, and this seems to me to support the view that there is a notable connection between the people on this list. (I've already stated that I think this page should be kept, so I don't think I need to explicitly restate my position in this additional comment. RomanSpa (talk) 10:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I said a connection between the Christian Brothers and the people that are in the list. Not academic research that identifies and discusses commonalities in the Christian Brothers' educational approach. Create a Christian Brother's article and put all the research on the Christian Brothers educational approach in it that you want, but that has nothing to do with this list or the AfD. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing concern: unlike other groups of schools (say, Jesuit), if this affiliation is not intrinsic to the school, then every entry needs to demonstrate that the person attended during the time the school was affiliated. It's not enough to say "Joe attended St. Someone College" because "St. Someone College alumni" only has an intersection with Christian Brothers rather than being a subset. That means tracking every person's timeframe and the affiliation timeframe of each school. DMacks (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:00, 29 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tobin D. Costen[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, creator may be connected to subject. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 05:27, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is written like an advertisement, so yes, agree with nom, there may be a close connection between editor and subject. Insufficient references for BLP. 90% of references refer to productions, not him. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and Insufficient references for BLP. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any sources after going through WP:BEFORE, including newspapers.com. (There is one minor newspaper reference to a Tobin Costen, but I'm not sure it's even the same one and it isn't in-depth.) Sources on the page are all WP:UGC, with one interview source (dataday) which refers to him as a client. Not seeing suitable sources, likely not notable unless something else comes up. ASUKITE 15:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 29 July 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. Sandstein 06:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RB Collection[edit]

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

moved by the author from Draft without review at afc. It would't have passed if it had been reviewed, since it has insufficient sources for notability and is basically an advertisement DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a lot of crossover between this article, another new article Automobile Corner of America which is also authored by Alruozzi, and content in Arbogast & Bastian#Legacy. AllyD (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article reads like an advertisement and is sourced to advertorials. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I certainly don’t believe that either of these two new articles by this user meet WP:GNG (hence why I moved them to draft space after they were submitted the first time), and I would have done the same if there wasn’t already a deletion discussion on the subject. But now that there is, I would certainly say to delete both articles. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 05:12, 1 August 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karrin Taylor Robson[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Has not held a major position (Board of Regents doesn't reach that threshold. Sourcing is poor, pages from azregents.edu and about an election campaign. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Valley Leadership, a business association in Arizona, named her Woman of the Year, well before she announced that she was running for governor, and some reliable sources covered the Woman of the Year award. https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2019/11/02/valley-leadership-to-celebrate-man-and-woman-of.html https://frontdoorsmedia.com/annual-man-woman-of-the-year-event-includes-person-of-the-decade-award-for-the-late-senator-mccain/ https://www.yourvalley.net/stories/valley-leadership-names-man-woman-of-the-year-person-of-the-decade-award,111156 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get articles just for running as candidates in future elections per se, but this article does not demonstrate that she has preexisting notability for other reasons independent of a candidacy — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But a university board of regents is not an "inherently" notable office, winning a Woman of the Year award from a local business association is not a free pass over WP:ANYBIO (which is looking for nationally significant distinctions, not just any award that exists), and having been rumoured as a potential pick for appointment to an office that she was not actually appointed to doesn't make her special either. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above Fails WP:NPOL. Frigidpolarbear (talk) 13:34, 29 July 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Partclone[edit]

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

Non-notable e-tool. No good sources found. Ad-like article. Mottezen (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Mottezen (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Nestor, Marius (2019-11-16). "Partclone: A backup utility for GNU/Linux systems, in the style of the Partition Image (partimage) tool". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2021-07-30. Retrieved 2021-07-30.
  The review notes: "Partclone is a free and open source command-line software implemented in C and designed from the offset as an alternative to the Partition Image (also known as partimage) program, but for GNU/Linux systems."
2. Velasco, Rubén (2017-10-17). "Partclone, una alternativa a Acronis True Image para clonar discos duros" [Partclone, an alternative to Acronis True Image for cloning hard drives]. Redes Zone (in Spanish). Archived from the original on 2021-07-30. Retrieved 2021-07-30.
  Redes Zone has editorial oversight. From Google Translate: "Partclone, a simple and complete tool to clone partitions Although this tool has been created to work in a simple way, it actually also has a large number of advanced functions, such as pipe, stdin and stdout, which help us to create our own scripts. Partclone has also been designed to allow us to recover from damaged disks. Thanks to various libraries and functions such as "rescue" or "ddrescue", this tool allows us to dump, block by block, all the data from a damaged hard disk in order to try to recover the data from it."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Partclone to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by User:Cunard. VocalIndia (talk) 10:53, 31 July 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 05:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Pochinki[edit]

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

An unsourced single-sentence stub about a guy for whom no significant coverage (or indication of WP:GNG) seems to exist anywhere. I find a scant "Eduardo+Pochinki" sixteen news results from a web search: 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10, include only one short quote from him in articles that aren't about him. 4, 5, 11, 13, and 14 are trivial mentions in a list of other things. 8, 9, 12, 15, and 16 are WP:MILL (and not about him, but rather about the store). jp×g 03:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. jp×g 03:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable entrepreneur; even his supermarket chain is not among the largests here in Argentina.---Darius (talk) 20:19, 29 July 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 delete per WP:G3. (non-admin closure) Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Rae Le Roux[edit]

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

Poorly-written article with no references whatsoever that fails WP:BIO. WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 02:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, I can't find no references for now of this self-made millionaire. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2021

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a WP:HOAX article, and there is a failure of WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL: Now Californians have a choice between 46 candidates to be their next governor in recall election (Palm Beach Examiner, 2021), Redding woman is running to replace Governor Newsom in recall election (ABC7, 2021), A mayor, a pastor and an adult film star: Who's running against California Gov. Newsom in recall election? (NBC News, 2021), and other brief mentions/routine election coverage I have found do not appear to be sufficient to support notability for an article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I undid WaddlesJP13's (non-admin closure) for a couple of reasons. Yes, its likely that will be the result, but it hasn't happened yet, and so the page still includes a template directing people to an open AfD. The page still exists and while we might all agree with the speedy deletion, we probably shouldn't be closing discussions before it happens. And the nominator probably shouldn't NAC something unless they are withdrawing the nomination, but that's procedural. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no question, Speedy delete as obvious hoax. Elemimele (talk) 07:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there appears to actually be a candidate in the upcoming gubernatorial election in California by this name. I think we're unwise to label this article as a complete hoax. Much of the content may well be drivel, but it does seem that the candidate exists. Whether this makes them notable is a separate question. One possibility that occurs to me is that the creation and silly content of this article might be a political "dirty trick": create an article about a political rival, fill it with silliness, then have the article deleted so that it's more difficult to re-create with more robust content. I feel we should tread carefully here. RomanSpa (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the article now appears to have been deleted without a proper closure of this debate. I feel this was unwise. RomanSpa (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it before. I believe it's within policy to CSD something that is at AFD. Someone will likely be along shortly to procedurally close this AFD. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While the article has been prod'd for deletion (and listed here), it has not yet been deleted. I have requested resolution of the prod and closure of this AfD by an admin. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh strange, it was G3'd earlier. Someone must have restored it. You can disregard my comment. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article doesn't have adequate sources at all, and there are no references on this person. Tahaaleem ^Talk 10:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3. This BLP has quite a few claims. I googled and could not verify any of them. Jenny Rae Le Roux does exist and is a political candidate, but most of this failed verification, e.g. Urkel, copyright lawsuit, throwing peaches. Arguably a G10 too, the part about throwing peaches at prostitutes, zero hits in Google News for that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as this relates to a real living person, but is filled with unsourced claims. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has been deleted G3 Jeepday (talk) 12:16, 29 July 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 Deleted per WP:G11. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk nutrients[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for companies. Article for non-notable company with promotionally-written content created by a 5-day old user. Various (fixable) errors such as referenced inserted as external links rather than citations, improper capitalization in the article title, and no categories. This article may also meet WP:CSD (G11). WaddlesJP13 (talk | contributions) 01:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - per WP:G11.-KH-1 (talk) 01:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 29 July 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 01:49, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iamhere (social movement)[edit]

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

This is advocacy. Although for a worthy cause, it's still advocacy The eferences are almsot entire based on the organization's interviews or PRs. (It might be hard to do anything else, as there seem to be no actual accomplishments) DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added it as a stub because it looked as if it was a growing movement worthy of documenting with relation to the counterspeech article (which could easily do with expansion - lots of sources there!). Owing to its nature, existing solely on social networks, there hasn't been a huge amount written about it elsewhere, but I have just hit on a few more sources (including an article in an academic journal) which I'll review and add later if worthwhile. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extra work in the form of commentary on it now added. It's hard to know how to change the descriptive stuff without sounding like advocacy - it's about what its aims are and what it does... I don't know how you measure "accomplishments" of a group like this, but some of the new sources have examined its role. And there are a few articles about comparable social movements in Wikipedia already. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 23:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (weak but swayed by (Szakács & Judit 2021) added since nom.) ^[1] Bateman's ^[2] 2019 article for the BBC, referenced from some of the other sources, includes interview but Bateman is careful to attribute claims to the interview where necessary. Johansson & Scaramuzzino (2021) ^[3], also added since nom,, significantly studies the organisation. I do have concern over some content inappropriately sourced against primary sources and some sections probably require re-write. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article needs some clean up. Other than that, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG, especially with reliable sources indicated by Djm-leighpark. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Djm-leighpark. Entirely possible there's still work to do, but that's different from whether we should have an article or not. /Julle (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Szakács, Judit; Bognár, Éva (June 2021). The impact of disinformation campaigns about migrants and minority groups in the EU (PDF). In-depth analysis. European Parliament. Directorate-General For External Policies. doi:10.2861/693662. ISBN 978-92-846-8251-5. Retrieved 29 July 2021. This study was originally requested by the European Parliament's Special Committee on Foreign Interference in all Democratic Processes in the European Union, including Disinformation (INGE)... English-language manuscript completed on 24 June 2021.
^ Bateman, Jessica (9 June 2019). "'#IAmHere': The people trying to make Facebook a nicer place". BBC News. Retrieved 16 May 2021.
^ The Phoenix syndrome: Netroots organizations strategies to gain and maintain digital resource abundance (Report). doi:10.1177/1461444821999032.

Keep - AfD is not a clean-up tool. This meets WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 09:39, 3 August 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 delete and salt per CSD criterion G4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Students Organization of India MSO. Article text sufficiently similar to the deleted text that copyright violation and/or sockpuppetry may be an issue. —C.Fred (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Students Organisation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been deleted twice before, but under different names each time. Per deletion logs for the first and second iterations, the article was recreated so many times that both name spaces were indefinitely protected from recreation. This current version uses a different name to subvert that protection, as far as I can tell. Note that in the second AfD, the result was to both delete and salt the article. The creator's account seemed to have been created solely to recreate this article; given the confirmed COI of the sockmaster and puppets who created the first two articles, this seems like a similar issue which simply flew under the radar. The subject still fails WP:GNG, and the references for this article seem to be the same as those for the previous iterations. MezzoMezzo (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've filed the "3rd nomination" text incorrectly since the names were different. For reference, the other AfDs were Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Students' Organization of India and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim Students Organization of India MSO. MezzoMezzo (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This organisation is very influential and working for mainstreaming of the society specially the Youth. The twitter handle of this organisation is verified. https://twitter.com/msoofindia?s=09 Several important news papers regularly covering the activities of the organisation. It must be keep alive in Wikipedia. https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/peace-in-kashmir-possible-if-paks-terrorist-activities-are-curtailed-says-panel20210208024420 https://m.timesofindia.com/city/lucknow/muslim-students-sufi-clerics-to-reach-out-to-kashmiri-youths-against-extremism/amp_articleshow/52155779.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saq mso (talk • contribs) 18:42, 29 July 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 01:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Scharler[edit]

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

Promotional article, content created by SPAs. No evidence of notability presented, under WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG or any other notability criterion. WP:BEFORE shows no coverage, let alone anything up to the standards required for a WP:BLP to exist. Of the two RSes, one contains no biographical detail, and the other is a 404. PROD removed by an SPA on the article, without fixing sourcing problems. David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient evidence for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Delete A few superficial (i.e., not WP:SIGCOV) write-ups of how he connected his toaster to Twitter are insufficient grounds to build an article upon. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As an academic with only about 150 citations, he doesn't meet WP:SCHOLAR. His patents may be insignificant unless used in major products or technology, and based on provided sources, it doesn't appear so. As an actor he doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. Peter303x (talk) 22:40, 2 August 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.