< June 16	June 18 >

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

The result was merge‎ to List of schools in Nepal#Rupandehi District. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of secondary schools of Rupandehi district[edit]

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

I am struggling to see how this isn't a violation of WP:NOTDIR as it is literally a directory of every single secondary school in just one out of the 77 districts of Nepal and, if that isn't enough, I'm not seeing WP:LISTN being met either as there is a lack of significant, independent coverage of this particular grouping. I can't find anything to suggest that the secondary schools in this district are a distinctive enough phenomenon to require an exhaustive list of every single one of them. The list itself doesn't seem to meet any of the three purposes listed under WP:LISTPURP either. Similar deletions have taken place with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Misiones, Paraguay, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in Gombe State and even Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in Venezuela, a list of schools in an entire country rather than just a small district. In my view, List of schools in Nepal is sufficient and we shouldn't be encouraging people to do directory lists for each of the 77 districts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, and Nepal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NLIST. Most of the schools do not have their own articles and no further context is provided on the list. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only blue link entries to List of schools in Nepal#Rupandehi District. Ajf773 (talk) 21:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Merge option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I am not persuaded by the nom's LISTN argument. I am no scholar of Rupandehi district matters. But simply on the face of it, the claim that secondary schooling in Rupandehi (or any comparable geographical area) has never received significant independent coverage is an extraordinary one that I have difficulty believing was intended seriously. The precedents cited in the nom strike me as more of a monument to AFD's perpetuation of systemic bias than anything else. That said, there's no obvious reason for this district alone to be split off from the rest of the List of schools in Nepal at this stage in its development, so merging it there seems fine. However, I see no indication that the Nepal list is intended to be restricted to bluelinks (indeed bluelinks seem to be a distinct minority). So if merged, I would advocate merging the entire list. -- Visviva (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What about the WP:NOTDIR argument that I led with? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I don't quite understand it. None of the bullet points under NOTDIR would seem to apply (unless we're going to say that all bare lists are violations of bullet #1, which would be quite a shift). And in general, given encyclopedic subject matter, a comprehensive list is going to be of greater value to the project and the reader than a non-comprehensive one. -- Visviva (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also pertinent here. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. Nobody asking for this article to be kept has provided the necessary independent sources to demonstrate this requires a stand-alone article. The content is verifiable through the government source but that alone isn't sufficient. We don't simply create an article just to mirror a drop-down list from a government website. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fazaia Degree College, Faisal[edit]

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

Lacks independent coverage. Continously being reverted by IPs. BookishReader (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While some sources are available, they do not meet WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. 33ABGirl (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's a degree college, not a school. So cant compare on the basis of WP:NSCHOOL. Portwoman (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:57, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janice Tessa[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. BookishReader (talk) 12:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Pakistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON. Insight 3 (talk) 14:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Reșița[edit]

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

Not notable. --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 15:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Czech government thinks they're useful (?) Elinruby (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link Elinruby (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have ample coverage (and also considerable importance). Looks to have been at the center of some significant political controversies in 2019 and 2020. Even the subject of some English-language analysis from journalistic and technical perspectives (although I suspect that the latter "journal" is not an RS) and some very interesting political analysis. One show from the station appears to have given rise to an entire book. Here is a story from RRC about the station's 25th anniversary that contains some interesting background (independence may be an issue for that one, although I'm a bit unclear how closely the different public stations in Romania are related). In sum, although I am ill-placed to evaluate the sources, even with my very poor Romanian search skills there doesn't seem to be any shortage of sources. Unclear why nom considered what appears to be a prominent and fairly controversial station to be "not notable". -- Visviva (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the great work done above by Visviva. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fancade[edit]

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

Problem of WP:NVG with available information mainly through some promotional-like articles of 2020. After that, there is no coverage, since I couldn't find anything else. Everything is written like a blatant advertisement WP:IBA. Chiserc (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chiserc (talk) 17:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with a lack of significant coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources there in terms of secondary information about the game are pretty minimal. But it's got Macworld, Touch Arcade, and Android Central coverage, in addition to the Google Play award, which counts for something. There's not really a parent article that would be a suitable merge target. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Touch Arcade is very "I haven't played all of it yet but it looks cool" which is pretty unconvincing to me especially since they apparently didn't bother to revisit it. Getting a few reviews in RS is usually not a massively high bar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. In addition to the sources David found, I also found this. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 23:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, per David Fuchs. It does not look like a whole lot, but there is at least something. jp×g 17:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the sources are borderline. But they convince me there is enough WP:POTENTIAL for an article. If more references don't appear, I would support a re-nomination or merge discussion at a later time. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Boyd[edit]

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

Frank Boyd

This stub is about a baseball player, but does not satisfy any version of general notability or biographical notability. The only references are databases. The special notability guideline for baseball has been removed, so that general notability is required but lacking. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Baseball, and Ohio. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What sort of WP:BEFORE did you do? Because if it's just Google, of course someone who played in the 1890s isn't going to have many results. On Newspapers.com, in just a few minutes, I found an obit and a funeral notice. And here's a handful more: [1][2][3] I presume that there's enough out there to establish notability. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Muboshgu's sources plus here is another source that also has its own reference list. Plus he has an extensive bio in Nemec's The Rank and File of 19th Century Major League Baseball. The old NSPORT may be deprecated, but virtually all Major League players, especially beyond 1890 or so, meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the nice work done by User:Muboshgu and User:Rlendog above. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. and rename to Murder of Andrea O'Donnell. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andres English-Howard[edit]

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

Delete as per WP:BIO1E and WP:PERP. Zero notability outside murder. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: rename to “Murder of Andrea O’Donnell” or something similar. An option with BIO1E is to just make an article on the event. Coverage is about abuse and truth serum as well as the murder; whole book here, as well as a page of analysis here and probably more than that here. One of the books is 20 years later (in 2011), giving lasting coverage. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I don't think the individual is notable (per nom), but the murder/case seems to be notable, and therefore moving the article to Murder of Andrea O'Donnell seems like a better way forward, and an ATD. Would the nom agree? Aszx5000 (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems to be, unfortunately, just another routine murder, which would fall under WP:NOTNEWS.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But does the legal implications of the murder and the truth serum coverage sway you? Aszx5000 (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, not really. Stuff like that happens all the time, although I understand your viewpoint. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:34, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & rename to Murder of Andrea O'Donnell. The perpetrator is not notable, but the case is. – bradv 00:37, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maher Ali Rusho[edit]

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

He has an honorary degree from what appears to be a degree mill. There is zero independent coverage in the article. It seems to be an elaborate hoax, to be honest. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Bangladesh, and United States of America. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't know if it's a 'hoax', but looks like it fails WP:GNG.-KH-1 (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. M.parvage (talk) 14:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- degree does appear to be a degree mill type or hoax. I'm sure the article impressed his friends for a few days and the utility has passed. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Next College Student Athlete. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Krause[edit]

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

Article created by an SPA a decade ago, with virtually no non-gnoming work since then. Founding a company does not bestow inherent notability, and I am concerned that the citations provided appear to either contain limited mention of the subject in the course of covering said company, or have a PR feel to them. BD2412 T 22:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 22:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - not a whole lot about him outside of founding Next College Student Athlete. Seems to be a case of WP:1EVENT. If there is indeed any notability, then it lies with Next College Student Athlete. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 22:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Next College Student Athlete per Knightoftheswords281 and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Agree with nom that the sources are aimed mostly at the company, not the founder. A sentence or two about the subject can easily be included in the parent article. StonyBrook _babble 14:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn‎. After discussion, a source has been found that confirms Lietzau is notable per point three of WP:CREATIVE. (non-admin closure) Schminnte (talk • contribs) 06:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Samuel Lietzau[edit]

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

Non notable author. Part of the development team for Enderal, but notability is not inherited. PROD was contested on grounds of there being a German Wikipedia article, hence the listing here. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Cannot find any amount of independent coverage that confirms the significance of this person's collaborative role in the creation of the notable works they've contributed to. As such does not meet WP:V. A proper independent source could change my mind.. Edit: Vote retracted, my concern is addressed by Mitumial's Eurogamer source below. —siro χ o 21:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only WP:RS that's listed in the article is this one from the Münchner Merkur, a major Bavarian newspaper. Besides that, everything else is cited to a Reddit thread, Lietzau-Schreiber's own website, WP:IMDb, and several MobyGames databases; which, while appearing to be more reliable, I'm not exactly sure grants too much nota-points to him, considering its effectively just an online credits page. Maybe there's more sources for him in German? - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 22:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lietzau is a known games writer and narrative expert in Germany. He has been interviewed several times by Gamestar, a major German games outlet (Example 1 Example 2 3) Example 2 also provides proof for his involvement in the SpellForce series. He has appeared as an expert on various games-related German podcasts, and, more recently, is set to speak at a storytelling panel at HFF (a major German film school) whose expert speakers were selected by Games Bavaria, a government-funded games program. (Link. ) MobyCredits is a reliable source for game credits, but (aside from Example 2 above) his name appears in the credits of SpellForce 3 in the indicated role. Credits

I am happy to provide more sources if needed. Mitumial (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mitumial: on English Wikipedia, interviews do not count towards notability. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Knightoftheswords281, I just looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, and they list MobyGames as an unreliable source due to it being user generated (like iMDb). Schminnte (talk • contribs) 10:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered a reliable source of credits? Are the credit video and the Gamestar article linked above considered sufficient? Mitumial (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube video is showing up a HTTP 404 error for me. The gamestar interviews seem fine, but as I said, they are primary sources and cannot be used to show that Lietzau is notable (see Wikipedia:No original research subsection). Schminnte (talk • contribs) 12:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the working link https://youtube.com/watch?v=1ZE1IEjyCL8

Also, here's a recording of the video podcast about Spellforce 3 Soul Harvest with Gamestar.

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8bur0p Mitumial (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gamekult, says they are "one of the project leaders". IgelRM (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry: all I'm seeing here are passing mentions to Lietzau's participation in a notable game, nothing that shows that he himself is notable. That is my concern here. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 21:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By WP:CREATIVE.3 the notability of a work can establish notability of the creators. However, it's especially to do that here hard cross-language. The Gamekult article seems promising but it seems to be partly an interview, which wouldn't necessarily verify the fact that this person was deeply involved in creation? Really tough call here. —siro χ o 21:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. As the interviews are coming from Lietzau, I would say that they shouldn't be used to gauge his impact on the project. Would be interested to hear others' thoughts. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another article from gaming outlet Eurogamer that mentions Lietzau as the Lead Writer of the project, but isn't an interview: Link Mitumial (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Red Dead Redemption 2, and restore redirect to List of Back to the Future characters#Einstein‎. This is becoming a storm in a teacup and a classic example of an IAR case. Boldly closing to prevent further drama. — 🦊 03:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein (dog)[edit]

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

It doesn't take an Einstein to see that a single motion capture role for a video game doesn't merit a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomming an article is one thing, but there's really no need to crack jokes about a dead dog. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 21:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Animal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content into Red Dead Redemption 2, redirect page to List of Back to the Future characters#Einstein; the dog's notability comes solely from the game and doesn't have enough singular weight to warrant a separate article. The article was almost certainly created due to his recent passing, which isn't enough to establish notability. Additionally, the page was a former redirect to List of Back to the Future characters#Einstein, which has and almost certainly will persist as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 21:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend Closing discussion since this is about a recently deceased individual for multiple reasons; among them WP:INSPECTOR and WP:BIOSPECIAL. I further object to the nominator's inappropriate cracking of a joke at the expense of a recently deceased dog. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 22:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Request discussion closure since apparently the fact that I wrote WP:INSPECTOR has led me to be accused of being a sockpuppet? I have reverted the edits, and so since further contributions are unlikely to be helpful I think we should just move on. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 22:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into Red Dead Redemption 2, redirect page to List of Back to the Future characters#Einstein per Knightoftheswords281, no further argument to add. There is no further sourcing coming up in WP:VG/S's custom search engine except for the death. -- ferret (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into Red Dead Redemption 2, redirect page to List of Back to the Future characters#Einstein per above. Dawnbails (talk) 22:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Red Dead Redemption 2 and restore redirect per others. The sarcasm in the nomination was probably poor taste, especially if the dog's owners end up reading this discussion, but nevertheless, simply creating an obituary is not a valid reason to have a Wikipedia article, and can lead to significant awkwardness when that runs up against actual policy. The article creator is clearly significantly emotionally invested in this circumstance but that alone cannot cause the rules to be bended, and this is a situation where WP:SUSTAINED applies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have repeatedly asked that this discussion be closed and the content reverted (and have attempted to do so myself) due to my own agreement that it does not meet notability, I am unsure how I am asking for "rules to be bended". The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 22:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AFD discussions are not closed solely because of the creator’s request. Frostly (talk) 23:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But they are supposed to be closed when further contributions are unlikely to be helpful and when an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 23:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please be aware an uninvolved closer must close the AfD, which should happen eventually. However, the involved page creator is not permitted to do these things and we are not yet at the WP:SNOW stage of things in my estimation, so saying it should be closed due to that is premature. Possibly in a day or two it will be, but that is up to the closer, who again must be uninvolved, to decide. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been blanked as a courtesy.

Merge with Red Dead Redemption 2 Redirect to List of Back to the Future characters#Einstein Agree per above. Bobherry Talk My Edits 00:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Request for closure again, since I have again been denigrated and scolded and again been accused of sockpuppetry off-wiki on the discord (which I have now left). This is a clear case of WP:SNOW, attempts to fix the issue met with bad faith attacks...I don't even know what to say at this point. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 02:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop taking things out of context. We were explaining that the creator of the WP:INSPECTOR redirect was the sockpuppet, nae the essay, the redirect CiphriusKane (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Well, this discussion has gone on for 5 weeks now and needs to be closed. While there is some support for Redirection, I don't see support for deletion and the majority of editors believe the articles are sourced well enough to Keep. A good point is made about the variance in SIGCOV for historical figures vs. the well-documented modern press coverage on topic of popular interest. Maybe a discussion is called for to supply a more nuanced understanding of GNG for current topics vs. those from centuries long ago before modern media was even conceived much less blanketing our lives. I also think there was some confusion here that this discussion covered two separate articles and while I can see why the nominator combined them, it led to some split opinions which is always trickier for a closer to carry out. I learned from reviewing this discussion, thank you for keeping things civil. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ingibjörg Hakonsdóttir of Orkney[edit]

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

Fails GNG and BIO. Notability is entirely based on family. Lots of mentions, nothing with SIGCOV. No objection to a consensus redirect to Óláfr Guðrøðarson. I am also nominating the following related geneology bio page:

// Timothy :: talk 02:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its notable enough to be its own article it just needs more sources which i will have to scavenge for cant we just move it to the draft space so it can be worked on and finalized? AvailableViking (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Óláfr Guðrøðarson (died 1153). LibStar (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Royalty and nobility, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the subject was also known as "Ingibjörg Hákonardóttir" (not to be confused with Ingeborg of Norway), as documented here. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Both articles are well sourced and present details about the lives of two women who played an important historical role in the 12th century.--Ipigott (talk) 06:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even the articles both state, "Not much is known about her life other than her descent from noble blood and marrying Óláfr Guðrøðarson". // Timothy :: talk 15:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I did that as a general thing because I was lacking information. I was waiting for people with more knowledge on the subject to fill it in also because I personally didn’t know what to put because I didn’t know the intimate details of their life. I still think the articles should be kept because articles generally tend to be improved over time. AvailableViking (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find it confusing that two separate proposals for deletion seem to be on the same proposal. I think they should be separate as each biography would benefit from separate consideration Lajmmoore (talk) 07:10, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ipigott. Not much being known about a person is not a criteria for deletion. Insufficiency of sourcing is. These articles do not suffer from an insufficiency of sources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:37, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What SIGCOV is available on this person? If everything is in the context of her genealogy then a redirect would be more appropriate than a standalone. JoelleJay (talk) 20:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay just to note the AfD is proposed for two people Ingibjorg AND Ragnhildis Olafsdottir, so I think there's two separate discussions to be had. Lajmmoore (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced on Ragnhildis. The Moore source has a passing mention in one clause of one sentence on her; Ellis just says she was the daughter of Olaf of Man and wife of Somerled with no other details on her; Williams says basically the same thing while also mentioning a claim that she was daughter of Ingibjorg. I can't access McDonald, but if it's also just repeating genealogy without any coverage of her then my !vote would be to redirect both articles. JoelleJay (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JoelleJay, Lajmmoore, McDonald is available through the Cambridge University Press section of Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. TSventon (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Ragnhildis Olafsdottir - I think there's sufficient evidence from sources Moore, Ellis, Williams and Macdonald to show that she is significant in the wider historiography. This article may also be helpful to support this, but I do not have access. (Note: I've not looked in detail at Ingibjörg's article yet.) Lajmmoore (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing much in that linked article, I'm afraid. It's basically this sort of thing: "Somerled himself married Ragnhild, a daughter of King Olaf of Man, and through this marriage was the founder of a vigorous family of Hebridean sea-kings." -- asilvering (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for Ingibjörg Hakonsdóttir of Orkney (although I'm not anti-keep) - the issue for me is that although the article is well-sourced, the majority of those are primary sources, and secondary sources are required to demonstrate notability. This mentions Ingibjörg in more detail, but in the absence of wider research (a problem with Viking Studies in general) it's difficult to make a more substantive case. I empathise @AvailableViking: as I remember clearly how it feels when you're making your first contributions and things don't work out. Thanks so much for your hard work on these Lajmmoore (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (or merge) somewhere. There is nothing in this article but genealogical information, with which I see no issue over the truth of the content, but she was not separately notable. My preferred target is her husband Óláfr Guðrøðarson (died 1153), but any of the other suggested targets would do. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is two articles on this talk page AvailableViking (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Ingibjörg to Óláfr Guðrøðarson (died 1153); the material may be well sourced, but what's in there is nothing but genealogy, easily incorporated into other articles. We do not address systemic bias in any way by keeping a bare-bones stub; the subject's significance is better presented as part of an article that would gain more views. Keep Ragnhild; while only marginally better, there is a genuinely independent claim to notability there (which could honestly be explained somewhat better), and content that does not easily fit into any of the more clearly notable articles linked. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Amakuru (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER; just because the passage of time has erased much of their RS, doesn't mean we should not preserve them. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soft keep Ingibjörg Hakonsdóttir of Orkney, Keep Ragnhildis Olafsdottir: If I read both the pages correctly, they were both Queen consorts (which may be notable) and there is sourcing to verify that. I think these articles need improvements, but are good enough that they don't need deletion. I also think Ragnhildis's sourcing and article probably meet WP:GNG.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (both). Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER (and my comments earlier), they were important people in their times. Ragnhildis probably meets GNG on its own; and also Ingibjörg would have been notable in her time. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific discussion and analysis of the references available for this subject, and why they do or do not constitute significant coverage by reliable and independent sources, would be much more helpful than a back and forth of "Yes it's notable" and "No it's not".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to the longstanding community consensus that subjects who would have had an article in their time should have one now, both articles have sufficient sources from in depth works and papers that establish notability from a historic standpoint. ~~@Death Editor 2, it's not just a "single dead blog."~~ - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 21:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake, I have nothing to do with this with discussion. Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, my bad. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 21:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"subjects who would have had an article in their time should have one now"

Maybe so, but sadly they don't get one until we can find reliable sources to build them one.

-- A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's enough verifiable sources for that article, it just needs expansion. Rager7 (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can someone !voting to keep please link the best three pieces of SIGCOV for each? Notability is not inherent or inherited, so it is irrelevant what subnational "noble status" someone had. There is also no consensus anywhere that allows editors to decide an ancient subject "would have had an article in their time" (how does that make any sense!) or even that coverage would have existed. The requirement for an article is the current existence of SIGCOV in IRS, which does not include mentions in genealogies or other coverage exclusively in the context of relatives. I have not seen a single in-depth source here; everything has been trivial mentions or, at best, a few sentences describing a lineage that leads back to the subject(s)--nothing that actually discusses the subject's life. JoelleJay (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, @Tagishsimon and @Knightoftheswords281 make good arguments which I second. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 03:25, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Ragnhildis Olafsdottir, Keep Ingibjörg Hakonsdóttir of Orkney

First, these are those articles that take a lot of research to start - well done, AvailableViking. Someone could write 1000 words of Pokemon stuff in the time it takes to carefully research and write one paragraph of medieval Kingdom of the Isles history. Personally, I prefer the history.

This is material that comes from books, not articles; it's worth considering what "passing mention" means in that context. So many of our articles are referenced using dedicated one or two page modern news articles. A one page news article that mentions a person in passing does not establish notability. Just one page of text in a 500 page history might technically be a passing reference (given its percentage of the book's content) but it's plenty to establish notability and build an article.

So @AvailableViking can you tell us about how much those sources at the bottom of the two articles say about each subject? Ingibjörg's article lists 9 sources, Ragnhildis's lists 6 sources.

Since Ragnhildis Olafsdottir as the wife of Somerled was the "cause of the collapse of the entire kingdom of the Isles" as one historian said, I'd say she was a big deal. The Kingdom of the Isles lasted several centuries and consisted of every island off the coast of Scotland from Man to the Shetlands. See the section about the Somerled era in our Kingdom of the Isles article.

Precedent: about a third our articles on Scandinavian Scottish nobles are as terse as our Ingibjörg article and most do not list 6 or 9 sources at the bottom of the article. Here are some examples; I encourage taking a quick look:

Sumarlidi Sigurdsson, Paul Haakonsson,David Haraldsson, Magnus II, Earl of Orkney, Jón Magnússon, Earl of Orkney, Magnús Jónsson, Earl of Orkney, Máel Muire ingen Amlaíb, Ásbjǫrn skerjablesi, Neit

All are important even if we don't know much interesting detail about their lives. The same is true of Ingibjörg and Ragnhildis.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking around some more, I see our article about Óláfr Guðrøðarson (died 1153) has interesting material about Ingibjörg that could be added to our Ingibjorg article. See Óláfr Guðrøðarson (died 1153)#Alliances. Óláfr had two wives; Affraic was his second. These marriages were closely associated with regional power politics and scheming. Ragnhildis gets a mention, too. This material is well-referenced and foot-noted.

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i have noticed there was information from Olaf the reds article about this someone just need to transfer the sources, references and information to help add on to Ingibjörg's article. AvailableViking (talk) 02:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to Óláfr Guðrøðarson (died 1153)#Alliances at the bottom of that section about the marriage not being official and it coming before Olafs other marriage, that could be added as a section to Ingibjörg's article which would definitely add some more content to the article. AvailableViking (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your enthusiasm about this. Most of the sources only marginally refrence the character or have very little information about them you really have to scrap the bucket to get information about them dispite how influential and important they were for their time AvailableViking (talk) 02:53, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While the information about Ragnhildis and Ingibjörg is sparse, they were undeniably important figures in their time, with a significant impact on society they ruled. Hence WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Sources found but it would be great if those arguing to Keep this article could add them to the article now that you've located them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wess'Har[edit]

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

Article is using a singular source from a long dead blog Death Editor 2 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for further improvement. Most books in this series seem to meet WP:NB.1, and the series itself seems to as well eg. [4][5] —siro χ o 21:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. To my surprise, I found quite a lot of academic scholarship specifically about the series as a whole: "No Easy Answers in Karen Traviss’s The Wess’har Wars Series", "Unbalanced Nature, Unbounded Bodies, and Unlimited Technology: Ecocriticism and Karen Traviss’ Wess’har Series", plus discussion in other articles on broader topics: [6][7][8][9]. I also found two more casual pieces: [10][11]. I'm not sure if WP:NBOOK is really meant to apply to a series, but this looks like plenty of coverage for GNG to me. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, those six (!) academic articles showed up right away when I searched "Wess'Har" in Google Scholar. Don't forget GScholar for your WP:BEFORE, especially for books! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is there aren't enough good quality sources to sustain an article, and a search for further ones didn't bring up anything sufficient. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fear & Hunger[edit]

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

By all respects, the RPS source seems to be the only WP:RS with significant coverage for this game. There is an overwhelming consensus that Super Eyepatch Wolf is not a reliable source. Therefore, this indie game appears to fail WP:GNG by a fair margin. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Anything concrete on the reliability of Superjump? Daranios (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Team" it states it is a writers collective and is comprised mostly of contributors without a dedicated writing staff, so I'd probably err on the side of "not". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - seems to have a small amount of coverage from various published sources (CRB, Rock, Paper, Shotgun Niche Gamer [which from my research, doesn't seem to be terribly small). Not terribly notable, but I'd suspect it barely passes ~~WP:VGN~~ WP:VG/S at the least.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightoftheswords281 (talk • contribs)

WP:VG/S classifies Niche Gamer as distinctly unreliable and CBR as situational and not counting towards notability (technically not directly on the page but it's run by the same people as GameRant/ScreenRant). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Knightoftheswords281: I assume you meant to link Wikipedia:Notability (video games) rather than Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter? As a WikiProject essay it has very little persuasive power.

@Zxcvbnm: I'm equally troubled by WP:VG/S making determinations of "generally unreliable" etc. based solely on discussions on a very low WP:CONLEVEL. Ljleppan (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last discussion about Niche Gamer brought up this as recently as 2022, so you tell me if it should be considered a reliable source. Because to me, that alone should be disqualifying in the extreme. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant WP:VG/S, not WP:VGN. - Knightoftheswords281 (Talk · Contribs) 16:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources like Niche Gamer aren't just unreliable because of the consensus at WP:VG/S, but by application of the widely accepted policy documented at WP:V. "Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." RPS would be the only reliable source here, and still not enough coverage to support an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete As I commented above, I put pretty much zero weight on essays such as WP:VG/S or WP:NVG. As far as I can determine, there's no community-endorsed subject-specific notability guideline for video games, so this all reduced to WP:GNG. Of the references currently in the article, #1 and #7 are interviews (and thus non-independent), #2 and #4 are too short for my taste, #5 is a self-published video essay on Youtube and #8 is a store page.
This leaves #3 (a medium-length segment in a longer piece in Superjump), #6 (a medium length piece in Rock Paper Shotgun) and #9 (a medium-length piece in Niche Gamer). I don't see any reason to not count #3 and #6 as contributing towards a WP:GNG pass. While there's no strict community consensus on how many sources are needed to satisfy the multiple requirement of GNG, I believe three is rather commonly accepted as a reasonable threshold. This leaves us with the question of ref #9's reliability. On a surface level, the piece appears to be of sufficient length to not be dismissed instantly, but there appear to be legitimate concerns about the site e.g. stealing content from other websites. I'm also not impressed by the use of what appears to be an anonymous (or rather, pseudonymous) author.
All told, we appear to have two sources that are at least decent, and then a bunch that do not contribute towards GNG. I've always found these kinds of cases rather tricky: two is, technically, multiple. but given that both are relatively short and e.g. metacritic doesn't indicate further reviews are available, I think I fall on the side of a (rather weak) delete.
All that said, I think even more good ref of medium length would turn me towards a keep. -Ljleppan (talk) 16:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: There is no evidence of references to pass WP:GNG. CastJared (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having been actually semi-retired since 2019, I am unfamiliar with the above editor's contribution history, but it's somewhat telling that, apart from the OP, CastJared is the only non-"weak" delete thus far, and CastJared has since been indefinitely blocked for CIR-violating commentary in AFDs, with the evidence presented in that discussion looking, at least to my eye, not dissimilar to the above comment that cites GNG but seems to be somewhat ignorant of the content of the said guideline. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is also this article by The Sun Daily and this one by DualShockers. Daranios (talk) 10:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first is unreliable, the second is situational, so I'd assume neither count towards notability here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I have not investigated the notability of this video game (hence "weak" keep), but, like the better part of two-million other souls, I am subscribed to Super Eyepatch Wolf's YouTube channel. There seems, per my comment here, to be a fair amount of misunderstanding of our sourcing policies and notability guidelines in this instance. Unless it can be demonstrated that SEW was paid to promote this game, then he is, at least in theory, independent enough to be used in the establishment of notability. This article is not a BLP, so there is no inherent prohibition on using self-published sources from public figures who are well-known and generally well-regarded, at least in relation to their own opinions. The only real circumstance in which the self-published status of a source would (in and of itself) be enough to eliminate it as a source for GNG purposes would be where the person who wrote and published the source was directly connected to the subject itself. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lenore Montanaro[edit]

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

Does not reach the notability standard; WP:GNG. I found no widespread evidence of significant coverage by WP:RS. Most sources are primary, with a direct connection to the subject, or exclusively local. GuardianH (talk) 19:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Poetry, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While searching on Wikidata, I couldn't find any viaf associated with this person. Weird for a writer. It's like she never plublished something. Don't seem to have ennough evidence to establish her notability. --Fralambert (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This person is clearly an academic writer and is thus notable per Wiki's guidelines about notable persons. I found several pieces of her publications online, like here: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol55/iss1/1/. She is also acknowledged in many independent secondary sources. She has received "a well-known and significant award or honor" and is "notably influential in the world" of animal law. This person also played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work: https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/book_pdfs/00_animal_law_2nd_ed_front_matter_0.pdf. She is also an amputee lawyer and academic professor: https://cranstononline.com/stories/sa-montanaro,113347.

See this too: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/tortsource/2020/winter/valuation-companion-animals/?login. The guidelines for notability do not require a viaf and many writers do not have a viaf. We should keep this person, especially because she is the only leg amputee to graduate from the College of the Holy Cross: https://patch.com/rhode-island/northkingstown/challenge-accepted Literaturelife856 (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC) — Literaturelife856 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Literaturelife856 This is a non-sequitur, but the image you uploaded to Wikimedia Commons was removed as a copyvio violation. The image is the same one used on Montanaro's Linkedin page, yet you labeled it as your own work... If you have a close connection with the subject a relevant policy to look at is WP:Conflict of interest, where you need to declare your connection to the subject if you have one. GuardianH (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Citations fail to show notability, any reliable sources are WP:MILL. Created by and heavily edited by a WP:SPA. - Skipple ☎ 20:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which citations fail to show notability? I think that this person is notable. This person is an academic professor, top animal welfare lawyer, writer, and only leg amputee to graduate from the College of the Holy Cross. We should not delete this disabled lawyer. We can fix citations, but the article should not be deleted entirely.

https://law.rwu.edu/faculty/lenore-montanaro

https://www.animallawconference.org/lenore-montanaro/

https://www.lawline.com/lawyer/lenore-m-montanaro

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/tort_trial_insurance_practice/publications/tortsource/2020/winter/

https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol55/iss1/1/

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/international_law_news/iln-v48-no4.pdf Literaturelife856 (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She needs widespread coverage in reliable sources — not just passing mentions. She has written journal articles, but it doesn't seem that she has projected an influence over the field as a whole (i.e. Steven M. Wise) and her authorship of a few articles is relatively common. Doesn't seem she meets any aspect of WP:ACADEMIC at all from the sources provided. GuardianH (talk) 00:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I think my mother is notable, but that doesn't mean she is to anyone else other than me. I would recommend reviewing WP:GNG. Notability is established by having significant, in-depth coverage by third party, independent, and reliable sources. Everything you have stated makes her sound like a lovely person, but not particularly notable. - Skipple ☎ 04:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Beccaynr (talk) 19:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Based on sources in the article and my own search, including at the Wikipedia Library, it seems too soon for notability to be sufficiently supported by independent, reliable, and secondary coverage according to the WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR guidelines, and similarly, her academic career does not yet appear to have sufficient support according to the WP:NPROF guideline. There is coverage of her early life and education in e.g. Jan 2012 and her poetry in Nov 2012, [12], but I have not found reviews or other secondary coverage of her writing, or substantial secondary coverage of her work as an attorney. The article states she is a fellow of the American Bar Foundation, but this does not appear sufficient to support WP:NPROF#3 (an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association) according to the Foundation bylaws. Beccaynr (talk) 02:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON; literary career has not received documented independent coverage. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Maliner (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bunn[edit]

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

Unable to find substantial coverage other than sources from his own institutions (not independent sources). Essentially an article uncited since 2006 – Aza24 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Aza24 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found and added one footnote to the article ([13]), and I expect there is more coverage like this, but I haven't found anything better. I don't think any amount of coverage like what I just found would really be enough for notability, so, delete from me. If anyone else finds something actually substantial, do ping me. -- asilvering (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked and came up with no reliable sources to add. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getty H. Huffine[edit]

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

Appears to be no substantial coverage. It seems he is best known for "Them Basses March", but that is probably more deserving of an article than the composer in this case. The current sources are either primary (town records) or very minimal. With an American figure who died 70+ years ago, one would expect sources to be found easier, but he's not even mentioned by Grove. Aza24 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Aza24 (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Aza24 - I could not find good sources to support this. Ping me if someone turns something up. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the German and Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia articles. Both have references we don't have. @Aza24, can you look at these and see what you think? --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Arabic article just sources two sites which give statistical information (dates and name), while the German one has a program notes and book written by Huffine himself, neither of which seem notable. I can't access the The wind music encyclopedia anywhere so am not really sure what to think of it. Aza24 (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pictarine[edit]

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

No independent establishment of notability with WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Amigao (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP due to a lack of reliable sourcing. The only sources I could find online for this subject were either connected to the business itself, or were news reports by unreliable websites. The Night Watch (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found several references in French at [[14]]. Also: https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=0a677ba5-46e7-4fbc-a2bf-94277a7e85a1%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=82474827&db=f6h Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes those references in French reliable? I don't see any editorial policy page for Maddyness (the top source) Franceinfo appears to host blogs, Ladepenche has neither an editorial policy nor a listed author for its article, and the rest of the articles do not have significant coverage of the company (thus failing WP:CORPDEPTH). The only source that may be reliable and has in-depth coverage is La Tribune, but that is only one source, when multiple are required for GNG.

In addition, @Eastmain can you provide a functioning link to the source(s) you found in Ebscohost? The link doesn't appear to work for me. Thanks, The Night Watch (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Night Watch: @Amigao: When you aren't sure whether a source is reliable, it is often helpful to read the source's article in Wikipedia, including other language Wikipedias if appropriate. The Ebscohost article is available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. La Dépêche du Midi is a long-established newspaper founded in 1870. You can read about La Dépêche on the French Wikipedia at fr:La Dépêche du Midi. La Tribune is described in its own article in the English Wikipedia at La_Tribune and in French at fr:La_Tribune_(France,_1985). Maddyness is described in a single sentence at fr:Sentier (quartier de Paris): "Le magazine Maddyness spécialiste de l'actualité des startup est également installé dans ce quartier." fr:France_Info_(offre_globale) appears to be part of France's pubic broadcaster. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I know to look up the source's Wikipedia articles, otherwise I wouldn't have linked to La Tribune. However, just because a source is the subject of an article article does not mean that it is reliable. Analyzing the article just helps in finding journalists/awards that the source received that may make it reliable. I just raised points above about the editorial policies and authors of many of the sources, and the France Info post itself appears to be a blog according to a paragraph at the bottom of the page. Again, the article for La Dapheche does not list an author, saying that a "Contributor" wrote the article. The Night Watch (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment. In regards to the TWL articles that Eastmain mentioned, the first one "90-Day Wonders talks about the product and how it was pitched and produced, and gives only brief mentions regarding the company itself. I am leaning towards saying that it is insufficient to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH, despite it being a reliable source. The other two articles do not even talk about the company or its products at all. The Night Watch (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The relevant policy here is WP:NCORP, and WP:SIRS and WP:CORPDEPTH apply in evaluating sources. As per The Night Watch, these sources including the new sources added fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The stated business volumes are not high, and the sources nearly all call this a startup. Even the La Tribune article is brief, although that source might be considered as one source that has sufficient coverage to meet WP:SIRS - but it is alone in that. WP:SIRS says: there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *about the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified or reworded. Looking at the references and I include the Tribute reference mentioned above, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Tribune article relies entirely on information provided by the company and/or the founders and has no in-depth independent/original analysis/opinion/etc about the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:27, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bardwell Road[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, after the first sentence it only talks about buildings on the road, many of which have their own articles. Sources 3-5 are not independent. Rs chen 7754 19:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Rs chen 7754 19:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the road has its own entry in the Hibbert encyclopedia and Hinchcliffe book. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- And again, is there more that can be written using those sources than just the road's existence? --Rs chen 7754 20:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable, sourced and meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable and well sourced. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well cited, notable, and meets WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG. I see nothing wrong with the buildings on the road having a brief description here and a more detailed treatment (hopefully) in their own articles. This must happen all the time. I imagine that Buckingham Palace has a mention in the article on London as well as it's own article. P.S. Let me know if there is no article on Buckingham Palace and I will create it. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are multiple sources that indicate the subject of this article passes WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 13:13, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dietrich Unkrodt[edit]

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

Cannot find any substantial coverage. Current sources are either unreliable (discogs) or a funeral home (I think?). German WP article is almost identical, as this one is a translation. – Aza24 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Germany. Aza24 (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The person composed and played unusual recordings for an unusual instrument, and taught, all this before the time of web coverage, and most of his career in East Germany.

too tired to look for more --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are all just passing mentions though... Aza24 (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, his main career was before the internet, and in East Germany. He made recordings that were mentioned decades later, which tells me to keep. [15]. Perhaps SusunW can dig up newspapers? Anyway, I'll have no time for him today, but promise to look tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, noting I was called here by Gerda Arendt. As she said likely many off-line sources. East German, allowed to tour the US and internationally, was really unusual. [16],[17],[18], VP of the Tuba International Brotherhood Association, the inaugural VP. There are also bits [19], [20],[21],[22], and then there is this [23] "Concerto for Tuba and Orchestra" by Joachim Gunner (p 131, 133), "Sieben Miniaturen für Vier Tuben" by Gunter Kochan (p 226); and Fanfare for a Friend by John Stevens (p 254) were all written for Unkrodt. Book also includes people he taught. Would need input from someone who has access to a library (I don't, but possibly the RX, where I've ordered.) to see the bios here: "Dietrich Unkrodt studied at the Berlin Conservatory from 1952-1955 and was a member of Landeskapelle" (p 28), "Dietrich Unkrodt of the tuba jury displayed musical and instrumental vision which went far beyond the standard limits…He showed an adventurousness and determination to extend the limits of the tuba…" p 44. Clearly notable from other musicians' perspectives from what I can see. Has a bio Kürschners Musiker-Handbuch, p. 487. SusunW (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, much improved, clearly shows notability now. —Kusma (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is multiple reliable sources coverage such as a number of books identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Shovel Knight. ✗plicit 23:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shield Knight[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

After doing a WP:BEFORE check, I was unable to find any reliable sources. The AFD from 7 years ago was kept because of the few sources within the article, most of which are passing mentions or sources that cannot contribute to notability. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fictional elements, and Video games. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent game Shovel Knight, or weak keep for the Reception section's sourcing alone (better-quality refs may be needed). --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shovel Knight - minor character with only trivial mentions. I had proposed a merge last year, but it was contested and closed as no consensus. I still feel the same way about its notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge reviewers have occasionally tipped hats to her clever toying with tropes but I don’t honestly see why we need a whole article on this character even if there are more sources because there’s not a whole lot here to say. Dronebogus (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. OceanHok (talk) 13:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Shovel Knight. The content can be added to a new section Characters or be a part/sub-section of Plot. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Traffic enforcement camera as Speed camera redirects there ✗plicit 23:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HOTA[edit]

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

The concept fails WP:GNG - the only news sources are pages like [24] which have a sentence about what it is. Rs chen 7754 18:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Rs chen 7754 18:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Speed camera. Not independently notable, but a key aspect of speed cameras in the United Kingdom. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This title should redirect to Hota (disambiguation) (that I've just created), so if kept the article should be moved to Home Office Type Approval. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Traffic enforcement camera. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Speed camera as per Thryduulf. No evidence of notability to warrant an article but certainly some salvageable bits can be merged in to the aforementioned article. –Davey2010^Talk 18:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Knekna[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAD and I can find no evidence of passing WP:GNG either. Best sources that I can find are Ant1Live, which mentions her once, Cypriot Squash Federation, which also only mentions her once, and Sigma Live, which mentions her three times in a listing of winners of an event but provides no prose about her. I can't find anything that we can build a biography from. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Badminton, and Cyprus. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found no reliable sources and she fails WP:NBADMINTON --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S., I checked the German and Greek Wikipedia articles -- they are similarly sparse on references. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawing nomination - Survey of London is secondary and while that is only one source, there are worse articles to focus on. Rs chen 7754 20:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Argyll Street[edit]

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

Only relevant source is Survey of London, which is a primary source. The rest of the article is about the historical buildings on that street, which already have their own articles. Rs chen 7754 17:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Rs chen 7754 17:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. – Joe (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transmaxxing[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable; not covered in reliable sources. The sources mentioned in the article (none cited inline) are 2 blog posts (one from Glenn Beck), a National Review article (no consensus for general reliability, but almost certainly not sufficient for notability on this subject), and an UnHerd opinion piece. Searching finds nothing else, unsurprisingly. It would need *way* more coverage to warrant anything more than a passing mention in Incel or something similar, and there aren't even sources for that yet. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I edit conflicted with WK tagging it with ((db-hoax)), but whether it's speedied or deleted via AfD it's pretty clear it needs to go. WK largely covers it in the nomination rationale: exceptionally poor sourcing that wouldn't even warrant a mention in another article, much less a standalone page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete - I had my eye on this and was thinking of nominating it for deletion myself. I agree entirely with Writ Keeper's analysis - none of the sources in the article are reliable, so WP:GNG is not met. I cannot find anything myself either. WJ94 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly non-notable, like other editors the only sources I can find are unreliable. I'm pretty sure this is some sort of hoax designed to inflame anti-trans sentiments online, but I'll be damned if I can figure out where it originated from a brief search. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Earlier today I posted on the talk page recommending more sources. If they couldn't/can't be found, it should be deleted.--MattMauler (talk) 16:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Incels seem to get dumber every time I read about them.AryKun (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. No. Just, no.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:04, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm the creator of the article, I thought this as interesting entry for Wikipedia, but unfortunately the sources currently in the article are the best I was able to find, so I have to agree with others, that this has to be deleted. My apologies. --Pek (talk) 07:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- ’Not Delete’ for the reasons listed in my last comment. this is a real phenomenon that is ongoing, currently being undertaken by many, and currently going through many developments. it would be unwise to remove the article
Kat the vat (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Not Delete As I wrote above. Sorry I am new to Wikipedia.
~~Llamato (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)~~ Sock vote struck. firefly ( t · c ) 10:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that transmaxxing has been covered in reliable sources. Most notably the original Sanjana Friedman piratewires article.https://www.piratewires.com/p/transmaxxing Llamato (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with llamato.

this topic is a valuable one to hold on the site.

i am currently unable to edit the page, but i would like to include some sources:

1. piratewires original article https://www.piratewires.com/p/transmaxxing

2. incelwiki https://incels.wiki/w/Trannymaxxing

3. two first person sources:

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwrHkhm-TwfnZb6h6OhHqcx5cinqSEg75

https://youtube.com/@llamato

i hope this is helpful in the establishment of this article.

i will edit it tomorrow when i get the chance! Kat the vat (talk) 07:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most accurate article was probably the one published by unheard and even that had some issues.

There is also publications and websites by the community itself such as https://vintologi.com/threads/transmaxxing13-manifesto.1337/

The most notable thing about the transmaxxing community is how much media coverage it got, the actual community is mostly a general MtF community. Vintologi (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: There has been some pretty clumsy and stupid sockpuppetry here - Kat the vat and Llamato are quite obviously the same person, and "agreed" with each other. I've struck one of the !votes. Vintologi/Vintologi28 (the second of which has not voted but has edited the article) are also socks of each other - but distinct from the Kat/Llamato pair. I'd advise the closing admin to scrutinise any !votes from brand new users closely. firefly ( t · c ) 11:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: saw this page yesterday but forgot to nominate it for deletion. Non-notable and appears to be a hoax. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a single reliable source cited. I can't work out if this is transphobic disinformation or just a hoax for amusement value but either way there is no evidence that it deserves to be in an encyclopædia. — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stelios Longras[edit]

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

The sole source in the article is a stats website. Absolutely no WP:SIGCOV found on extensive Greek and English-language searches, only passing mentions such as this. There are no pointers that there would be offline coverage of this person either. Thereby the article fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:GNG. GGT (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Cyprus. GGT (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per nominator's source analysis. Jogurney (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SPORTBASIC #5 Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Navid Ghasemi[edit]

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

WP:ATHLETE this person isn't notable. Matingholami (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no accomplishments that would indicate notability. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SP77 31-18[edit]

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

As for the reasons of proposing this article for deletion: it does not meet WP:NASTRO at all and likely is difficult to improve properly due to it only being mentioned in large scale-surveys with basic properties and not showing its significance. SpaceImplorerExplorerImplorer 14:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absolutely nothing notable about this object, fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. No studies dedicated to this object individually or as a member of a small sample. The article is created purely on the basis of a large radius, calculated from one large-scale database which has a particularly high luminosity and low temperature. Other databases suggest a more typical star, possibly not even a true supergiant. Lithopsian (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - running a search, I came across this Simbad data. I assume that does not count. I didn't find anything else using non-astronomical resources online so it doesn't meet WP:GNG. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:04, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there are no studies or other sources with any WP:SIGCOV of the star; the only sources are SIMBAD and databases. Neither of those sources establish any notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NASTRO. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 08:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Oxfordshire Senior Football League. ✗plicit 23:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mansfield Road FC[edit]

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

I don't see that this article meets GNG. Its only reference is to a profile on its league site (not independent or significant) and I can find nothing significant online.

This is a tier 11 club and I don't believe they participated in the FA Vase or Cup.

I would have used PROD, but it would only be removed, so might as well save some time and take it here. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, United Kingdom, and England. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - longstanding consensus at WP:FOOTY is that clubs that have never competed in any sort of national competition do not reach the required level of notability unless they have received significant in-depth (non-routine) coverage, and I can see no evidence that this one has -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oxfordshire Senior Football League as we have done previously for similar low-level, non-notable clubs. Giant Snowman 18:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Oxfordshire Senior Football League - we are not a directory for non-notable football clubs such as this one. Redirect because it's a plausible search term. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samate language[edit]

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

This is a partial hoax (nothing points to it being an isolate), and Peta Bahasa isn't known for its reliability. Not much shows up in search engines. In fact, "Samate" is another name for Ma'ya (going by "Word-prosodic systems of Raja Ampat languages", 2001, p. 14). Semmiii (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not 100 percent sure on it's hoaxness, but what I can see is that its notability is not up to Wikipedia's standards. Fails WP:GNG. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 14:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 15:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to the unrelated Ma'ya language per nom. (Not helped by the lack of an ISO 639-3 code, a red flag in itself.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 18:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is the second article on an Indonesian language I’ve come across today by the same creator, with very inadequate sourcing. Not sure if theyre hoaxes exactly, or just leaps of the imagination. Mccapra (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Ma'ya language. As mentioned in the source cited by the OP (here's a link to it), Ma'ya (including dialects) is often referred to by the place that it is spoken at. Bahasa Samate is the variety spoken in the village Samate on Salawati Island. In ISO 639-3, Ma'ya is split into four varieties, the dialect in Samate is included in "Salawati" [slz].

@Mccapra: Believe me, this is indeed not an isolated occurrence with this page creator. They have long a history of producing articles about spurious languages and ethnic groups bordering on hoaxes, probably created in good faith, but with a very poor grasp about what they're reading in the sources. I mean, saying that a language variety is an isolate when it scores 95% lexical similarity with neighboring lects is sheer cluelessness. Last month, I PROD-ed two of their creations (Vanimo Malay and Poso Pesisir people). I know, this is not place for it, but this cries for a TBAN or at least making it compulsory for them to go through the draft submission process. –Austronesier (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Austronesier, and support restrictions on creator. JarrahTree 02:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Tobati language. ✗plicit 14:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Enggros language[edit]

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

Not generally recognized as a language, borders on a hoax. Languages in eastern Indonesia often have different village-based names, and nothing points to Enggros being distinct from Tobati. Going by the Tobati sketch in "The Oceanic Languages", Enggros is a village where Tobati is spoken. In fact, the data analyzed there comes from "the Enggros dialect". The same author has created Tobati–Enggros languages, a "group" that appears to have been made up too. A single anthropology paper speaks of a "Tobati-Enggros language", but otherwise not much of value shows up in search engines (and news articles aren't to be relied upon, especially when contradicted by literature). The Liputan6 article does mention "Tobati" and "Enggros" separately, but it isn't clear what kind of distinction is being implied. It provides some good insight into the vitality of the Enggros dialect, though. Semmiii (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tobati language per nom (and perhaps salvage what little usable material remains into a new "Enggros dialect" section); meanwhile, Tobati–Enggros languages is as good as AFDed at this stage anyway. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 19:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Mccapra (talk) 19:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Indonesia Malay[edit]

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

A hoax of sorts, with questionable English prose. These languages do exist, but there are a few major issues with this article:

The classification provided is inaccurate and doesn't appear to follow either of the purported sources (Glottolog and Ethnologue). I think it's a weird mash-up, partially drawing on geography. For example, Manado Malay and North Moluccan Malay are very closely related ("Manadoic Malay" in Glottolog), yet they're listed separately here (owing to their different locations?). The rather mysterious Bacan Malay shows no special relationship to these languages, yet the author insists on listing it under North Moluccan Malay. (In fact, Bacan is very different from all of these languages -- it's not a lingua franca/trade language, let alone a creole.)
Some of the varieties (Sula Malay, Gorontalo Malay) are underdocumented and not even listed in the two sources. People in the Sula Islands actually speak something closer to Ambonese Malay, but I don't think anyone has described the situation there.
I don't think Vanimo Malay exists. Some people in the area do speak Indonesian/Papuan Malay, but I'm unaware of it being considered a distinct variety. Again, no mention of it whatsoever in the declared sources!
"Ethnicity: Malays and various other ethnicities" -- this is very misleading. These languages are mostly used by unrelated eastern Indonesian groups, some of which have adopted them as their primary languages. The Bacan people are thought to have migrated from Borneo, but they have their own ethnic identity too. I believe the same holds true for Larantuka/Nagi.
The article fails to mention that the characterization of these as creole languages isn't widely accepted (see discussion in Kluge, Angela (2017). A Grammar of Papuan Malay. Studies in Diversity Linguistics 11. Berlin: Language Science Press). Compared to every other issue, however, this isn't such a big deal. Semmiii (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Indonesia. Shellwood (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can suggest an appropriate redirect target. Mccapra (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page Malay trade and creole languages would work as a redirect target (but it isn't the greatest either!). Oh, and a bit of a comment: considering this edit description, I don't believe the editor is keen on remeding the problem (which would amount to rewriting a significant portion of the article). Semmiii (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Malay trade and creole languages per nom. This is another product of an editor with serious CIR-issues and a total unwillingness to communicate (if not learn from their past blunders). –Austronesier (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Semmiii's well laid out explanation JarrahTree 02:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast#Military-civilian administration (March-June 2022). Less Unless (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Governor of Zaporozhye Oblast[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:GNG like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Head of the Donetsk People's Republic Panam2014 (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. Could be expanded with Russian or Ukrainian sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That guideline about people does not apply to this article about a wartime appointment, not about a politician or judge (that would be Yevgeny Balitsky, although he is neither). —Michael Z. 19:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Russian occupation of Zaporizhzhia Oblast#Occupation administration per my comments in the previous AfD, which I think reflect even more on this article considering the novelty of this disputed subnational entity. Next time, consider using WP:PROPMERGE instead. Curbon7 (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The article is a one-item list with no references. There’s nothing to say about this specific post that can’t be said in articles about the appointed military–civilian occupation head himself, about the occupation, and about its events, which are all notable topics. —Michael Z. 19:26, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast#Government. ✗plicit 23:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Governor of Kherson Oblast (Russia)[edit]

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

Not meeting WP:GNG like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Head of the Donetsk People's Republic Panam2014 (talk) 13:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 June 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast#Government per my comments in the previous AfD, which I think reflect even more on this article considering the novelty of this disputed subnational entity. Next time, consider using WP:PROMERGE instead. Curbon7 (talk) 18:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Article is a one-member list, cites only a single, WP:primary source. No evidence of notability as a subject. —Michael Z. 18:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Athena (video game)#Sequels. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Athena: Full Throttle[edit]

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

I was unable to locate any sources to prove notability, and there are zero sources present in the article. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Video games. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Athena (video game) as WP:ATD. Hmm... I can't really find anything either. I'm sure it would be fine as a "sequel" section though. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hardcore Gaming 101 is considered reliable according to WP:VG/S, so not zero sources. --Mika1h (talk) 09:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The HG101 source is about Athena (video game), not this game. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's about Athena series and it covers Full Throttle: [25] --Mika1h (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It got one short paragraph and a screenshot gallery. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:04, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I created sequels section at Athena (video game), so redirect there. --Mika1h (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Athena (video game)#Sequels. --Mann Mann (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to find at least one independent Japanese source for whatever its worth --Totalibe (talk) 14:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M'bawine Atintande[edit]

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

I PRODed this as I can’t find in depth coverage in third party sources to support this BLP. DePRODed so bringing here for consensus. Mccapra (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Military, and Ghana. Mccapra (talk) 12:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following three sources were added to the talkpage of the article by the ip editor who removed the prod.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All three seem to be reports of statements made by the article subject as part of his job and not really ABOUT the subject, and as such probably don't count as significant coverage.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HBO controversies[edit]

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

per the reasons it was declined and rejected in the Articles for Creation process It's a redundant fork of the main articles, providing no summary comparative content. Plus, it's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT as a lot of high-profile media have controversies. Indagate (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Indagate (talk) 12:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think WP:CFORK is misapplied here. This article doesn't duplicate the scope of any another article (except for maybe HBO, but clearly this is far too long to be merged there). Copying and condensing material from a set of other articles on a related topic isn't content forking, it's summary style and is not only allowed but encouraged. Granted, this article could use some more work on the 'condensing' part, but the material from other articles is all properly attributed on the talk page and integrating it better is a just matter of clean up.

As for WP:UNDUEWEIGHT yes, we generally discourage dedicated criticism sections/articles, but there are exceptions for organizations, businesses, philosophies, religions, or political outlooks, provided the sources justify it. I'm !voting weak keep because I'm not sure this meets that criterion – but it's quite plausible that it does. Whole books in media studies have been written about HBO, and I'd be very surprised if they didn't include large sections on controversies and criticism. – Joe (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I rejected the original draft because it isn't clear that the overarching topic deserves a standalone list. There's a lot about the reception of individual TV series or films, and that either is or can be included on their pages. Would this page include all negative reactions to HBO content? It's debatable whether many of these are bonafide "controversies" vs normal media criticism. There's also two paragraphs of criticism about HBO MAX, which could be added to the existing reception on the MAX page. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK if consensus decides differently but I wanted to explain why I feel this page doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - It was rejected at AfC so no further work should have been performed. Further, none was, but then was pushed through by another reviewer. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG: That's not how AfC (which is completely optional) works, or a speedy deletion criterion. I'd expect an admin to know that... – Joe (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an AfC rejection is the opinion of a single editor (usually, but in this case two) it goes against WP:consensus to take this as an absolute. Yes most rejects are hopefully correct, but reviewers do make mistakes. KylieTastic (talk) 09:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to the articles each individual section belongs in. This isn't about "HBO controversies", it's about controversies of each individual show, which happen to be HBO shows. Each individual piece may well be undue, too long, etc for each article, but that's something that the editors of each individual article can then decide, as a normal content issue and not an AfD. They may all get removed from those articles too, and that's fine I think this is a kind content fork, though I do see Joe's point - I think he's correct that the whole thing isn't a single content fork, but what we have here is several content forks, which have then somewhat synthily been smashed together into this article. Basically, I think AfD is the wrong place to determine whether each section should exist or not, but the article itself, as "HBO controversies", certainly should not. -- asilvering (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to delete: dug through more thoroughly and there really is nothing to merge. Anything that looks relevant is already on the individual articles. -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Way too wide of a scope. Also, what constitutes a "controversy" can be considered subjective. I would argue that some of the things included are more just standard criticism rather than actual controversies. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "HBO controversies" isn't a coherent topic in its own right. This is in addition to the general problems with creating an article that exclusively covers negative aspects of a topic. Maybe some of this information can be merged into the articles of the respective shows, but at a glance, most of them seems undue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am just starting a user draft on Criticism of Warner Bros. Discovery, maybe some of the content can be implemented there. (Oinkers42) (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Oinkers42) I don't think that's the right lesson to take away here. If "HBO controversies" shouldn't exist, then there's a reasonable chance that "Criticism of Warner Bros. Discovery" fails for the same reasons. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Criticism of Warner Bros. Discovery is created, then this article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. CastJared (talk) 06:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See Criticism of Warner Bros. Discovery, as a suggestion to merge with partial content attached, without forking it. CastJared (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete per WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. If HBO as a company had controversies notably unrelated to their shows (such as strikes, white collar crimes in their executives, etc.) to the point of at least six notable events, then this article would be a good keep. Conyo14 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not meet WP:NLIST in my opinion. Most of the controversies are already mentioned on the pages of the relevant television series. Technically there is way more that could be written about the reception of HBO productions, but that doesn't mean there should be a standalone page for all of it. Anything that wouldn't be significant enough to warrant inclusion on the series' page is not significant enough for inclusion on a standalone page about HBO controversies. If this page dealt with criticisms of HBO as a company that would be different, but this is all reactions to TV shows with existing pages. (The only exception is the MAX streaming service, which also already has a page with a reception section). BuySomeApples (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, do not merge. This article is conceptually wrong and shows no understanding of how the television industry works. There is exactly one relevant section here, that of HBO Max going streaming-first, and that's not really a "controversy" just a business decision that some other players did not like. (But.... tough on them. That's no more a controversy than the local bar changing the cover charge.) All of those TV shows which had issues were not micromanaged by some HBO executive in New York, but rather, HBO was hiring/contracting out development of a TV show to a production team. These "creatives" can and do work for multiple studios and are fairly independent. So it's ridiculous to call these issues "HBO controversies" in the same way that you can't put everything bad in one sub-company of Berkshire Hathaway a "Berkshire Hathaway controversy"; it's too distant. An actual article would need to focus on HBO itself, not the TV shows on air. SnowFire (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:UNDUE POV fork, plain and simple. -- Prodraxis^talk _contribs (she/her) 23:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hakim Arif[edit]

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

Doesn't meet GNG, ACADEMIC, or BIO. Promotional writing and insignificant coverage. — T. 10:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — T. 10:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Other than some press release, I am unable to see any significant coverage in RS, fails WP:GNG. Also notability is not inherited. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Yahya (talk • contribs.) 18:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Filipino supervillains[edit]

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

Same reason as list of Filipino superheroes; just a bad list overall. Non-notable entries, no context, no evidence of notability, doesn’t even need to be a list if it was notable, etc. Dronebogus (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Lists, and Philippines. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do we even have a single article about a member of this group? There is definitely no associated category, possibly because there are fewer than five of them. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:05, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing particularly notable about this concept. Falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Absolutely trivial and not truly encyclopedic. Dympies (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:INDISCRIMINATE per nom. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has very few links to articles about Filipino supervillains so is not a valid list article. Category:Filipino superheroes shows there are enough superheroes to make a list for the superheroes. Someone could take Category:Filipino comics characters and make a list of all Filipino comic book characters. Dream Focus 07:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of black superheroes[edit]

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

Another “list of superheroes by arbitrary trait” article with lots of zero-context or non-notable entries. The topic is surely notable but no information on why black superheroes are important and how they were and are depicted is provided, and cannot be provided in this format. Dronebogus (talk) 09:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, Ethnic groups, and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:33, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tough one. The article in its current format is clearly problematic. It reads like a database and the sourcing is patchy to say the least. However, the underlying topic is highly notable ([26], [27], [28], [29], [30] and dozens more), meeting the criteria at WP:NLIST. There is some raw material of value here, so rather than delete it, I would like to see it transformed into a less indiscriminate list, possibly as a spinout of a main list within Portrayal of black people in comics.
Keep I think the basic concept behind it is notable, even if the list needs heavy cleanup. However, as it often goes, WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems are not a valid argument to AfD a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article could use a lot of work in sprucing it up, but there are a lot of reliable sources available to justify this list's existence. Conyo14 (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Representation is a thing. When a form of media, genre, or say, a type of character is almost always one way for a long time, exceptions often get press coverage -- not just because they're unusual but because the people represented are often enthusiastic and want to share examples. Nominating a bunch of "[group historically underrepresented] in [an area in which they were underrepresented]" articles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is, well, indiscriminate. Obviously there will be sources to satisfy WP:NLIST for this topic (I can link some, but I suspect that's not even in question, really), and inclusion criteria seems pretty easy to set up. The rest is just cleanup. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough blue links to their own articles to show they are notable entries. Any on the list not notable, as proven by having their own Wikipedia article or a reference showing news coverage about them, should be removed. Dream Focus 07:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Alvin and the Chipmunks specials and home video releases[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTCATALOGUE and WP:LISTN, poorly sourced fancruft Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Television. Ajf773 (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTCATALOGUE pure and simple. Dronebogus (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is not a catalogue for home media releases. CastJared (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTCAT filler that belongs on Fandom, not here; anything that was sketched or moved on TV in the 1980s for kids got multiple home video releases and this just seems to be a catch-all for any Alvin series and film rather than the 1980s series which should be the sole focus, along with OR regarding 'syndication cuts' from bored editors. Nate • (chatter) 00:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaf superheroes[edit]

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

Short arbitrarily defined list that seems to be based on WP:GREATWRONGS (why else would you list whether the writer is deaf or not, besides WP:COATRACKING in a point about deaf superhero authors?) and includes lots of non-notable examples. Dronebogus (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Disability, and Lists. Dronebogus (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overspecific, indiscriminate list, of which most of the entries are from a single work. A "List of superheroes with disabilities" may be a better idea (even if that is something of an oxymoron). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider that to be an oxymoron. Daredevil might have elevated abilities elsewhere, but he's still blind. Anyways, there should be a List of superheroes with disabilities. It has more notability than this. Thus I'm a delete for this, but there should be a list for the broader subject broken down by disability (deaf, blind, mental disabilities, paraplegic, etc.) Conyo14 (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, this is one where there just aren't enough to generate sufficient attention in the press. Wrinkling my nose at the proposition that someone is pushing a POV just for noting that a deaf writer worked on a deaf superhero, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only three entrees have their own articles, so not enough to justify a list article. Dream Focus 14:02, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. ✗plicit 12:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of female superheroes[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE to the extreme— do you know how many superheroes are female? I don’t, but suffice to say A LOT, probably so many we don’t need to list them all per WP:MILL. Dronebogus (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Lists. Dronebogus (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too large to make a usable list, even if limited to individually notable characters. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, as large in scope as List of sportswomen? Or List of women writers? Daranios (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don’t honestly need those either… ~50% of the population are women. Dronebogus (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd bet that is not the case for notable people in those fields, as opposed to people in general - there's still a strong need for such lists to highlight important boundary-breaking people. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there though? Women routinely become sportspeople and writers— some sports (like gymnastics and netball) and genres (romance fiction) are probably dominated by women. Similarly there are huge numbers of female superheroes, and if you included groups like magical girls (which arguably are just a slightly different kind of superhero) females would dominate certain areas of that too. That’s why I referenced WP:MILL— there’s no real novelty behind women being superheroes that requires listing them exhaustively. Dronebogus (talk) 11:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's a question we should pose to the participants of WP:Women in Red. Or we could look to secondary sources rather than our own impression. Check out this one: "...certain demographic groups have been overrepresented while those from more marginalized groups have been underrepresented and stereotyped. Female superheroes exemplify this underrepresentation and stereotyping..." One example of how female superheroes have been of interest to scholars, rather than being so common as to "not stand out from the rest". Daranios (talk) 14:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's only indiscriminate in that the page currently lacks prose putting the list into context, but the topic of women superheroes is clearly notable, given that entire books have been published on the subject, so that could easily be remedied. pburka (talk) 19:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a strong reason to have a list with prose providing context, rather than a prose article? TompaDompa (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - We could even have both. pburka (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is there any strong reason to? If the problem with the list is that it needs prose, having a list with explanatory prose and a separate prose article seems terribly redundant. TompaDompa (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - This list can't be redundant with an article that doesn't exist. pburka (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure if you're missing the point or intentionally ignoring it. You said that the problem with the list is that it needs prose. I'm asking whether you think there's a strong reason to add prose to the list rather than replace the list with prose. You suggested that we could have a list with prose and additionally a prose article. I'm asking whether you think there's a strong reason to have both, since having both seems redundant to me. You rather nonsensically said that the list isn't redundant to a prose article since the latter doesn't exist, which may be true but really has nothing to do with your suggestion to have two articles: a list article that includes prose and additionally a prose article. TompaDompa (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        A prose article discusses the topic. The list article provides a navigation help for what on the subject exists distributed on Wikipedia. So both have separate functions and therefore independent reasons to exist. Daranios (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I know that's your view on the matter and that we generally disagree on the navigational merits of lists like this (why does the list have redlinked and unlinked entries, is anybody actually going to come to this list to find the article they are looking for, would prose be better for exploratory browsing, and so on). pburka suggested that the list needs prose for context, and also suggested that a prose article be created in addition to the list. I'm trying to figure out what they think the benefit of organizing it like that would be. TompaDompa (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Just to to give my opinion, I think redlinked and unlinkable entries without secondary sources backing them up, which are only a very small percentage of the current list, should be removed to avoid any appearance of WP:INDISCRIMINATE problems - which is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. Daranios (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that's only part of the problem with a list like this: it is by design not meant to be exhaustive (unlike e.g. List of James Bond novels and short stories), not ordered in a way that conveys information (unlike e.g. Stephen King bibliography), not informational in other ways either (unlike e.g. List of cities founded by Alexander the Great), and not plausibly a navigational aid for people looking for a specific article (unlike e.g. Lists of Ancient Roman governors). It is essentially an exercise in stamp collecting. As with most topics, WP:PROSE would almost certainly be a better way to cover the subject matter. TompaDompa (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Lists are popular among certain Wikipedians because they’re extremely easy to “improve” (essentially busywork) or they can’t use categories and/or assume most readers can’t. If categories were made more accessible, especially in mobile, we would easily be able to cull most “stamp collecting” lists. Dronebogus (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'm afraid you've missed my point. The nomination rationale is false because this list isn't indiscriminate, or, if it really is lacking context (as described by WP:INDISCRIMINATE), the problem is WP:SURMOUNTABLE. pburka (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I know that's your view on whether this list article should be deleted, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about your suggestion to add prose to this article and also to create a separate, stand-alone prose article. Why organize it like that? TompaDompa (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I haven't expressed a view on whether this list article should be deleted, and I haven't proposed any reorganization. pburka (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        You said we could have both a list with prose providing context and a prose article. TompaDompa (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Are you saying we can't have a list and an article on the same topic? pburka (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm saying that if the list needs prose for context (in order to not be indiscriminate, or for some other reason), adding prose to the list and creating a prose article seems like a weird way of organizing it. TompaDompa (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        I think lists should have a few sentences of prose putting the contents into context and explaining the inclusion criteria. This isn't the same as an in-depth discussion of the topic of the portrayal of women in superhero fiction, which one might hope to find in a standalone article. pburka (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much like the list of female supervillains, this is too broad a list. As TomaDompa so well put it, a prose article would be massively better, possibly discussing both female superheroes AND supervillains. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it more, I'll have to vote keep instead - this article has a companion page already, Portrayal of women in American comics, and simply needs cleanup to remove non-notable characters. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:09, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While we can surely debate if we want this list on Wikipedia or not, I have not seen any policy-based arguments backing up the delete-opinions. Length, specifically, is not a reason for deletion. As long as we limit the list to notable characters, as suggested by LaundryPizza03 and mostly already the case, none of the points of WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies: This is not a collection of indiscriminate, uncommented information, but rather a cross-reference of information which has already been deemed notable and encyclopedic enough to include on Wikipedia, making this a navigational list in accordance with WP:LISTPURP-NAV. So far the only additional information the list gives beyond the category is the publisher/comics series and sometimes minor bits of commentary. Ideally, this could be somewhat expanded and made sortable, but it is already something.

Pinging if any of the participants of the long past previous deletion discussion are still around: @Jc37, Gandalf61, Smeazel, BOZ, and Jack-A-Roe:. Daranios (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list is clearly not WP:INDISCRIMINATE and I haven't seen a compelling argument to delete it. It does have lots of room to WP:IMPROVE, e.g., I'd recommend converting the list to a table and including additional context, such as date of first appearance and creator. The list should also be restricted to individually notable characters in order to constrain its scope (either blue links or well-referenced ref links). It should also link to prose articles offering deeper coverage of this notable topic. pburka (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Representation is a thing. When a form of media, genre, or say, a type of character is almost always one way for a long time, exceptions often get press coverage -- not just because they're unusual but because the people represented are often enthusiastic and want to share examples. Nominating a bunch of "[group historically underrepresented] in [an area in which they were underrepresented]" articles as WP:INDISCRIMINATE is, well, indiscriminate. Obviously there will be sources to satisfy WP:NLIST for this topic, and inclusion criteria seems pretty easy to set up. The rest is just cleanup. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per above, and per Superwomen: Gender, Power, and Representation, Carolyn Cocca, 2016, Bloomsbury Publishing - "Over the last 75 years, superheroes have been portrayed most often as male, heterosexual, white, and able-bodied. Today, a time when many of these characters are billion-dollar global commodities, there are more female superheroes, more queer superheroes, more superheroes of color, and more disabled superheroes--but not many more." Beccaynr (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.239.156.253 (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. This discussion has been open for almost 3 weeks and no new sources have been added to the article or discussion since the nomination despite arguments that more reliable sources would be located. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stips (Israeli website)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, as the sources are either passing references or are not independent of the subject. An attempted draftification was contested by page creator. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Israel. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please, this article is important and should not be deleted. It's overwhelming Israel recently. I know the sources are not 100%, but I'm active on the website for almost three years and I'm sure all I wrote is true. There is a number of independent sources not from Stips and I will probably find more in the future to verify all statements in the article. אוהד בר-און (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@אוהד בר-און:What you have written is probably true, however being active on the website and reporting your findings to Wikipedia is original research, which is disallowed on Wikipedia. We also need multiple significant reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG, which is Wikipedia's fundamental notability guideline. Failing it (which this article does in my opinion) is valid grounds for deletion. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 23:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I can find 10 more independent sources, will my article be spared? אוהד בר-און (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about how many sources you find. The most important thing, along with being independent, is that they give lots of information about the subject instead of just mentioning it. And it might be helpful to remember that articles on Wikipedia don't belong to anyone; it's an article that you gave to Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this article should be deleted, even though the sources aren't the best (probably because there are only few sources in English about this Israeli site).

The article is written nicely and clearly, there's no appropriate reason to delete it. מיכאל גנפולסקי (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can use Hebrew-language sources here, if you need to. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 23:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with nominator as sources are not independent and therefore doesn’t meet GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TandyTRS80 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can provide sources independent of the topic that cover it in detail. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Azerbaijanis[edit]

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

Very short list that can easily be covered by a category Dronebogus (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Dronebogus (talk) 08:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 5 character articles in Category:Fictional Azerbaijani people, of which 4 are in a subcategory for a single work. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 10:49, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Less Unless (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lunde[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG; none of the provided citations offer independent coverage of Lunde, just works by Lunde. Searching the internet, Google Scholar, and my university library I was able to find two reviews of works by Lunde, [31] and [32], but which don't discuss Lunde himself or his role in the works at all. When considering the case for WP:NACADEMIC, both of the reviews I would describe as faint praise for the works, nor is there any evidence of a high h-index despite publishing extensively. One of Lunde's primary outlets has been Aramco World described as follows in an Indiana University paper [33]: As Aramco World approached its fiftieth anniversary in November 1999, a retrospective feature touted the cosmopolitan ethos of the publication in its very founding, as it supposedly emerged from Aramco's culturally sensitive priorities. Presuming a fundamental chasm between US Americans and Saudis, the magazine sought: "to bridge the natural but enormous cultural gaps between its expatriate, largely American, workers and their Saudi counterparts and hosts … "7 Founded in 1949 in New York, Aramco World was modeled after other contemporaneous US publications like Life and Saturday Evening Post.8 In 1964, it shifted its publication headquarters from New York to Beirut, where it remained until the beginning of the Lebanese Civil War in 1975.9...n the case of Aramco World, for example, tight Saudi control of the magazine's contents remained in place (as it does to this day), even though the magazine was being produced in Lebanon to, in part, present an ostensibly localized and authentic—rather than propagandistic—picture of the region.12; -- in other words, at best a general interest magazine, at worst a propaganda venture. In the absence of biographical sources about Lunde, I'm not seeing a case for notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Saudi Arabia, and California. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSCHOLAR or WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lunde's books have been published by major publishers including Dorling Kindersley and reviewed in a number of independent, reliable publications including Library Journal (with multiple reviews in this publication including one from 2004 of his Organized Crime book and one from 2009 for The Book of Codes), Kirkus Reviews (2009 review of Book of Codes), Publishers Weekly (2002 review of Islam: Faith, Culture, History plus discussion of the book in a separate PW article), National Geographic's History Magazine (2009 review of Codes), and The Middle East Journal (2002 review of Islam), His work is also reviewed and cited in a number of other places, with all of these citations accessible through the Wikipedia Library. In short, there are easily enough reliable and significant secondary sources to prove notability for creative professionals.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree, there are plenty of reviews of his work and the fact that his books were published by Penguin and other reputable publishers should be evidence enough of his scholarship. 131.111.5.176 (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More input from experienced editors would be helpful…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agreed and it has notable publishers. CastJared (talk) 11:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I see more support for straight Deletion than for Merge or Draftify. I'm not adverse to draftifying an article deleted at an AFD but there has to be a sign that an editor is going to put time into the article and this isn't just a way of preserving an article for six months until its time expires. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Knights-Kings rivalry[edit]

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

Article does not meet WP:GNG based on the below source analysis table. Article reads as WP:FANCRUFT and the only sources available on a WP:BEFORE search are routine mentions or fan blogs. As a Kings fan, I don't like the Golden Knights, and maybe a rivalry is there, but given the lack of reliable sources and other animosity, it doesn't deserve an entire article. Article also seems hastily made. Conyo14 (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis by User:Conyo14

Source assessment by User:Conyo14
Series records : Los Angeles Kings(H) against Vegas Golden Knights(A)	WP:ROUTINE list of head-to-head records. N
Vegas Golden Knights VS Los Angeles Kings Rivalry Gaining Steam	Blog that does specify any animosity between the two teams. In fact it only says "All in all, the Vegas Golden Knights playing the Los Angeles Kings in round one of the playoffs would solidify the rivalry." The source does not actually specify a current rivalry, but rather the possibility. N
VEGAS GOLDEN KNIGHTS @ Florida Panthers FLORIDA PANTHERS	A livestream of Game 5 of the 2023 Stanley Cup Finals. This is an illegal cast of the game and is also a video source, WP:DONTUSETERTIARY. N
LA Kings: The Vegas Golden Knights are now the LA Kings biggest rival	Same publisher as the second source above, and it doesn't mention any animosity or build up to a legitimate rivalry. N
I Guess We’re Officially Rivals Now, Vegas	Someone's personal blog again mentioning nothing substantial. N
Golden Knights, LA Kings set to renew budding rivalry	Routine coverage of a playoff series preview between the two teams. Source only tells us the potential of a rivalry. N
SERIES PREVIEW: LA Kings, Vegas Golden Knights Set for Royal Rumble	Routine coverage of a playoff series preview between the two teams. Source only tells us the potential of a rivalry. N
Golden Knights hold off LA Kings in round one of Pacific rivalry	This is a pretty good source, but it's also routine coverage of a series review. ?
Golden Knights get the best of the Kings in new division rivalry	This is a published source by a reliable author (Helene Elliott). But it's also a routine coverage of the first regular season game between the two teams. ?
Vegas Golden Knights ready for the rivals during the 2021-22 season	Local coverage of specific divisional matchups. This is more recent than the other sources mentioned and I'd say it's good. Y
Quick’s Starting Gig in Vegas Adds to Heated Rivalry with LA Kings	Blog source. Routine coverage of players getting traded to each other. N
Weekend Takeaways: Has Quick's trade ignited a Kings-Knights rivalry?	This source doesn't even bother to consider the teams having a rivalry prior to a player trade. Also routine coverage of a player getting traded. N
Elliott: Kings 'a little scared of the fire' Jonathan Quick will bring to Vegas rivalry	More routine coverage of a player trade. N
Panthers or Golden Knights? A Stanley Cup Final rooting guide for 30 other fan bases	Mentions nothing of a rivalry in the Los Angeles section. N

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Conyo14 (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete or Draftify. I agree with Conyo’s source analysis that only the KTNV source is GNG appropriate. However some sources describe the potential of a rivalry. Considering these sources, the teams geographic proximity, and the fact the Knights are only six years old and the teams have limited postseason history, a move to draft space may be a good WP:ATD. [Also noting that I oppose a redirect/merge to National Hockey League rivalries, since that list should only rivalries with their own article.] Frank Anchor 16:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC) _{[note: bracketed text added at posted time. Frank Anchor 18:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)]}[reply]
Draftify I agree that it could be a draft. However, we have a main page for this: National Hockey League rivalries. It is mentioned there and I think it's worth having there, just not on its own. Conyo14 (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The bar for rivalry articles is set very high, largely because fans and bored sportwriters are altogether too ready to claim a bitter "rivalry" based on there being a recently strongly contested playoff series. We're talking Celtics-Lakers/Man City-ManU/Harvard-Yale level, with many decades and hundreds of games involved. This "rivalry" -- between nothing more heated than a couple of divisional opponents, over a relative handful of games -- does not come remotely close to meeting that standard. Check back fifty years from now. Ravenswing 01:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Conyo & source analysis. As Ravenswing said, it will likely take years for the rivalry to reach a requisite level of notability. I considered suggesting a merge to National Hockey League rivalries, but as far as I can tell, this article doesn't contain much more information than that one does (it's just wordier). Wracking ^talk! 22:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's already there, and what's there is fine. What's here is not enough. Conyo14 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or merge to National Hockey League rivalries as sufficient ATDs. DrewieStewie (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of an actual notable rivalry here, at least not in any greater capacity than between any two random teams in the same division. Based on the provided source analysis, most of this is WP:ROUTINE coverage, and fails to actually showcase a notable rivalry. In agreeance with Ravenswing, check back in a decade or two at least. Possibly support a merge into National Hockey League rivalries, zero support for draftification, this rivalry won't be notable on its own anytime soon. IceBergYYC (talk) 09:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A rivalry does not need to be as storied as Harvard-Yale or ManU-ManCity to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. But it does need to meet GNG, which requires multiple independent reliable sources discussing something particular as a rivalry - not just the two teams being in the same division (currently there are over 100 division pairings, not even counting historic division pairings) or playing a game or even a playoff series against each other. And this does not meet that. Maybe someday it will but not now. Rlendog (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chikau Mansale[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. There should be something out there given his international career, but I can't find it. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This reference appears in the existing article this article. I believe it won't count towards notability as it's from his federation. However, it does tell us he played international-level beach soccer and was "twice voted OFC Beach Soccer Goalkeeper of the Tournament", though I can find no other source for this. It's possible there is more out there, perhaps in local Queensland-based media, where he played with Logan United? MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to BC Cancer Agency. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tour de Cure (BC Cancer Foundation)[edit]

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

notability issue: there are the limited number of independent secondary sources covering the event. 1 or 2 sources out of 3 are closely connected with the subject Edit.pdf (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Canada. DreamRimmer (talk) 08:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I concur that there isn't notability here Kwkintegrator (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, additional sources have been cited to address issues related to notability. Dekay00 (talk) 14:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The independent coverage in sources like Cycling BC, Survey Now-Leader, and Vancouver Free Daily are just enough to pass WP:GNG, although I would like to see greater WP:GEOSCOPE to have a stronger !vote. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. There is media coverage, but with a quite limited regional focus that doesn't justify WP:GEOSCOPE and no WP:DIVERSE. I agree that there is a main editor with a close connection to this subject, so a redirect to BC Cancer Foundation may be an alternative WP:ATD. Chiserc (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to BC Cancer Agency. This can all be covered adequately within the scope of the BC Cancer Agency article, although I suggest the list of sponsors can be left behind as it's quite promotional. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you mentioned this. It's my first wiki article, so of course I templated it based on a similar event (Tour de Cure). Which was what led me to create this page, because when I search for the (Canadian) event I was attending, I was seeing American event details since the two share the same name. And surely, if the the Vancouver Sun Run qualified for their own page, it made sense for this one to have its own since they both have the same regional scope and notability.

I'm so disgusted with myself right now. I can't believe I turned off the Monaco Grand Prix just to see if I could keep my first wiki page. Dekay00 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to BC Cancer Agency as above. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to BC Cancer Agency - sources may be good, but doesn't need to be a separate page, especially given how short this and merge target are. Nfitz (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

François Sakama[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Oceania. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added a few refs, and there's plenty more on the Vanuatu Daily Post.--IdiotSavant (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Delete- Couldn't find sources to defend the article, all what my Google search brought was statistics.Epcc12345 (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not one of my strongest keeps as the coverage isn't crystal clear, but there's a surprising amount of coverage of him for a sports stub article, especially in local Vanuatu papers. The fact he scored a few goals internationally means he was mentioned in some international press as well. An odd keepable sports stub. SportingFlyer T·C 12:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer, what local coverage are you seeing?? Everything I found was of the brief "routine announcement followed by quotes from the subject" type. JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the Vanuatu papers directly. It was awhile back now and I don't have time to find it right now - just checking my pings. There's no "feature article" on him but that's also not really typical of the news there? SportingFlyer T·C 12:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer, I also looked at Vanuatu papers and did not see anything that rose above routine sports reporting and trivial mentions. Of course he will show up in a ton of articles--his name will be listed as the coach in every single routine match recap and he will be quoted in every press release by the team. It shouldn't matter what the standard is for Vanuatu news; either he receives SIGCOV in multiple independent avenues or he doesn't. And NSPORT still requires that a SIGCOV source be cited in the article -- if one can't be found, then the article shouldn't exist. JoelleJay (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. I think [34] is at least arguable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer, that's the one I quoted below. I translated the Bislama and all but the introductory sentence is actually quotes or repetition of what one of the two players says. There is no independent SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the non-bolded text in what I quoted below is not independent coverage; it's all just quotes without quotation marks. JoelleJay (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I still think that's generally fine. As a whole, especially when you combine some of the international coverage, there's a lot of coverage, and he did play at a high level for the region. This isn't one of those cricketers where we're making the SNG do all the work. It's obviously not coverage of an English Premier League standard but there's more than enough over a long period of time to show notability and enough there to write a stub article. SportingFlyer T·C 10:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You consider a single sentence SIGCOV??? And what international coverage? GNG requires each source to contain SIGCOV, be independent, and be secondary; where are those sources? JoelleJay (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Clearly sigfinicafnt figure isn Vanuatuan football with extensive career and defiantly has offline sources as well. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I concur with Das osmnezz - this has potential. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ????? There are two independent sources in the article. In the first, from Vanuatu Post, the only independent coverage is the bolded portion:

Yesterday morning, two Amicale FC midfield strikers, Fenedy Masauvakalo and Francois Sakama, left for a trial with AS Central Sport in Tahiti.

non-independent content from source
[The two players] said that they would make Vanuatu proud and bring a good name to Vanuatu, the future road from Vanuatu to Tahiti is the door to France, which will be easier. [direct quote from Masauvakalo] His colleague, Sakama, who never thought he'd make trials outside his country, said [quote from Sakama]. Sakama said he looks forward to going to Tahiti and will not forget to thank the man who made it possible, [quote]. [statement from president of PVFA]

non-independent content from source

[The two players] said that they would make Vanuatu proud and bring a good name to Vanuatu, the future road from Vanuatu to Tahiti is the door to France, which will be easier. [direct quote from Masauvakalo] His colleague, Sakama, who never thought he'd make trials outside his country, said [quote from Sakama]. Sakama said he looks forward to going to Tahiti and will not forget to thank the man who made it possible, [quote]. [statement from president of PVFA]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addison Avenue[edit]

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

Only citations 1 and 2 are valid secondary sources, but they are used to cite 1 sentence about the name of the street. The other citations are about various buildings on the street and not the street itself, and many of them are historic listings, ~~Survey of London~~, or blue plaques - all of which are primary sources. Rs chen 7754 06:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Rs chen 7754 06:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Notting Hill or other appropriate area article. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addison Road, London, I agree that sourcing doesn't support the notability of the road itself, but there is a small amount of content here that could be salvaged into an article about the area. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, sourced, meets WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nohttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Addison_Avenue&action=edit&section=1te: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:GNG with other encyclopaedic entries. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly notable and home to many important people. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Before applies here. A search of the Historic England database shows the following entries:

No. 57 and St James Lodge

That's a lot of listed buildings. Since these houses are not likely to be separately notable, this article is precisely the right place for us to cover them. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which is primary, or secondary? --Rs chen 7754 17:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historic England is secondary. They didn't build the houses and don't own them. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are confusing "secondary" with "unaffiliated". Rs chen 7754 20:55, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there are multiple reliable sources which indicate that the article passes WP:GNG. InterstellarGamer12321 (talk | contribs) 16:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rschen7754 your initial post says only citations 1 and 2 were valid secondary sources, i.e. London Street Names and The London Encyclopaedia. I believe London 3: North West (Cherry & Pevsner) and the Survey of London (Volume 37) are also valid secondary sources as the buildings on the street contribute to its notability. TSventon (talk) 19:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But do they? Do they provide WP:SIGCOV? Rs chen 7754 20:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Keep: I have added Victorian Architecture, which covers the Norland Estate on pages 187 to 190 and mentions Addison Avenue nine times. I think the Survey of London and Victorian Architecture individually provide SIGCOV, which is supplemented by The London Encyclopaedia (3 sentences) London 3: North West (4 sentences plus background on the estate). London Street Names only has 2 sentences, which is not SIGCOV. TSventon (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG. Justwatchmee (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete (G4) - deleted by @Bbb23:‎. Giant Snowman 16:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taras Zavadovych[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG, with the only source being statistics. Any other sources that have been found online (see the previous discussion) are passing mentions. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Football, and Ukraine. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 05:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - honestly this looks identical to the article that was deleted a few days ago. I've searched again for sources and can't see how he is any more notable than he was a few days back (i.e. not at all notable). Please refer to my comprehensive source analysis in the previous AfD. His 'claim to fame' seems to be playing 8 games in the Volyn B team. How is this worthy of a stand-alone biography? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kaatrukkenna Veli (TV series)[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is well sourced. DareshMohan (talk) 02:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree:
- Source 1's inline citation is incorrect and only is routine coverage about the serial's plot on the first episode
- Source 2 is a mention of the serial's actors only, and does say anything other than it is a remake
- Source 3 is only a trivial mention of the serial, with the same coverage as source 2
- Source 4 is primary, the serial's page on Hotstar
- Source 5 is routine coverage about time change
- Source 6 is routine coverage about an actress leaving the serial, and is mainly a POV of her about this
- Source 7 is routine coverage about an actor leaving the serial to act in a movie
- Source 8 is about an actor's death
- Source 9 is routine update on the serial's story
- Source 10 is repeat of source 8
- Source 11 is routine coverage of actor change
- Source 12 is about an actress getting vaccinated
- Source 13 is only a trivial mention of the serial, like source 2
Karnataka (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there’s a source from The Times of India [35] and News18 India. There may be important updates in the future because the show is still airing. --P.Karthik.95 (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source linked here is Source 2 on the eval. Please explain these "important updates", as there have currently been none so far in it's airing period. Until then, this is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Karnataka (talk) 23:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anandha Ragam (TV series)[edit]

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

Insufficient references, fails WP:GNG and WP:RPRGM, and WP:SIGCOV Tirishan (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Tirishan (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: @Tirishan: there’s a source from The Times of India. The serial has been remade in more than four languages: Telugu:[36], Kannada: [37] Bengali: [38] The drama has released and aired more the 200 episodes.[39]--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the Times of India source is it describes Premas Rang Yave as a new TV show, not an adaption of Anandha Ragam. So it doesn't show that Anandha Ragam is notable. You have similar problems with the newsorbit article which says the adaption is rumored to be an adaption of Anandha Ragam. At best it is a passing mention of the show. None of the sources are the substantial coverage of Anandha Ragam that you need to show notability. Grachester (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not currently meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Grachester (talk) 19:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ The show is still airing. There may be important updates in the future.[40]--P.Karthik.95 (talk) 10:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have already said "keep" once, you don't get to have two !votes. Please read WP:TOOSOON. If these "important updates" happen in the future, the show may be notable enough to have an article. Until it does, the article should be deleted, per policy. Grachester (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Scrivner[edit]

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

Scrivner does not seem to be notable enough to warrant a page on his own. His notoriety seems to arise entirely from his band and thus I would suggest that we merge the pages, delete Scrivner's, or delete the band's (as no other members have pages) and fold it into Scrivner's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeacockShah (talk • contribs) 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Utah. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability outside of his bands, which themselves are barely notable. He has received no media coverage except for a few mentions within articles about The Rodeo Boys, and even those are sparse. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While researching for my vote on Scrivner (above), I looked into his band The Rodeo Boys as well. I have seriously considered nominating them for deletion too, but it might be a close call because they got some local feature articles: [41], [42]; and some local album reviews: [43], [44]. That's the only useful coverage I can find on them. Any thoughts? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say they are worth deleting as well, honestly not sure why either had a page in the first place or how they made it this far. PeacockShah (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of leaders of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Shire Council[edit]

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

No effective sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NLIST. scope_creep^Talk 04:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep, don't you regard World Statesmen.org as a source?

Mbakkel2 (Talk) 05:27 (UTC), 19 June 2023

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and Australia. Curbon7 (talk) 05:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One source is the council's website, and the other is a deprecated source. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 06:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mbakkel2: There is only one blue link on the article and references are very poor. The first reference is non-rs and the second is a website, which is WP:PRIMARY. scope_creep^Talk 07:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For those wondering, WorldStatesmen was deprecated following this discussion. Curbon7 (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a shame to lose this information, but there's no source which specifically covers the entire list that I can find online. The topic clearly meets LISTN I think, we just need to source it properly. SportingFlyer T·C 12:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands discusses the local government, but for a shire of around 500 people, its leaders are not notable. If not deleted, it should be merged there, but we don't typically compile names of non-notable individuals leading small places. Reywas92^Talk 02:46, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shire of Cocos (Keeling) Islands as WP:ATD - agree with Sportingflyer that it would be a sham to lose this information, given external territories of Australia have less coverage overall on Wikipedia. Other local government areas in Australia have a list of mayors on their page - I don't see why this can't. Please don't delete this. Deus et lex (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I always wonder if these lists of elected leaders should be judged through the lens of WP:NLIST or WP:SPINOFF. Assuming the information is reliable and verifiable, NLIST looks at the notability of the list as a unique article entry, while SPINOFF suggests when the conditions exists to create a stand-alone article (with the assumption that the information would be acceptable within the parent article). I think that these lists of elected leaders should be seen as valid spinoffs and judged accordingly. --Enos733 (talk) 17:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HAL School Korwa[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Since the last AfD we are a a lot more stricter on schools with no inherent notability. This one fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 03:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. Skynxnex (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to find sources to meet WP:NSCHOOL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with the updated criteria, merely being a secondary school is no longer deemed sufficient to attain notability. It now necessitates the presence of credible sources that can substantiate its significance.AmusingWeasel (talk) 09:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Al-Bishi[edit]

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

The only thing I can find on him are profiles. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. Upper Deck Guy (talk) 02:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Saudi Arabia. Skynxnex (talk) 04:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IAR/COMMONSENSE. Over 50 caps for national team, appeared at 3 major tournaments. Will there be coverage of him in Arabic sources? Absolutely. Giant Snowman 16:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Seriously... I found [45], [46], [47], [48], and [49], among many more Arabic sources... definitely has many offline sources having been significant Saudi player in pre internet age... Article needs improve not deletion... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lazy nomination with no BEFORE done.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Al Riyadiyah has some coverage of Al-Bishi that looks significant: This interview includes a paragraph on his career exploits, and This confirms that he scored a goal in Al Hilal SFC's 1989 King Cup final victory (definitely not significant coverage, but an important achievement for sure). I'm going to look further, but unless someone has checked Arabic-language sources, we won't know if SIGCOV exists. Jogurney (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I checked online Arabic language coverage and it's pretty insignificant. A few sources mention Al-Bishi's career achievements, but most of the coverage consists of interviews with the subject on recent developments at his former club or regarding the league or national team. That said, he played in the 1980s and 1990s, and I can't access any coverage from that era online. I understand that Al Jazirah (newspaper) has an online archive going back to the 1980s, but I'm not skilled enough in Arabic to use it effectively. Overall, knowing Al-Bishi's importance to Al Hilal and the national team, and our lack of access to sources published contemporaneously with his career, I think this is a reasonable time to WP:IAR. Jogurney (talk) 17:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze of Sweden[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and the guidelines for companies. Can't find any reliable sources on google search or news. There are two references on the page; one to the company's website (not secondary), and one that seems to only mention the company in passing. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Sweden. Capsulecap ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a slighly better source, (Bergsten, Jan. "Manga samsas med mode", Norrländska Socialdemokraten 5 April 2016), when looking through an archive of Swedish newspaper articles, but it still doesn't give us enough foundation to be able to build an encyclopdic article. /Julle (talk) 10:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that seems to be the extent of Swedish media coverage. Draken Bowser (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Krehbiel[edit]

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

I believe this subject fails WP:NBLP. The three sources shown only list the subject's name in a trivial mention of the producers of 'Nightshade', which would not meet WP:SIGCOV. Searches only come up with the producer on review sites and other social media pages. Karnataka (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and United States of America. Karnataka (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. He has other good sources I can also include. Could you please give me a little more time? I will add more citations where he is also mentioned. Ricktheelectric (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more sources to prove the notability of the subject is wonderful! Karnataka (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also from what I know Deadline is considered to be a reliable source of information and only notable filmmakers are mentioned there and this man is also in the Hollywood Reporter which I also included in his references section. Ricktheelectric (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricktheelectric: I have no problem with the source itself, Deadline and Hollywood Reporter may be very reliable and notable, however adding "more citations where he is also mentioned" will not prove the notability of Casy Krehbiel (read WP:SIGCOV by following this link). In all three sources, he is only mentioned once, and there is no further information about him other than that he was one of the co-producers of 'Nightshade'. Karnataka (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so are you saying that I need more sources where there is detailed information about him, such as an interview? Ricktheelectric (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricktheelectric an interview, regardless of who publishes it will not pass WP:GNG due to it not being independent of the subject. Find sources that comply with this, such as articles that not just mention Krehbiel's name, but those that also talk about himself, his expertise, his past life or his career and add them into the article. Read Wikipedia:BLP as it offers guidance of how biographies should be written and sourced. Karnataka (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then in that case I will find more sources such as detailed articles about Krehbiel but in the meantime I think that the solution is to improve this page and not delete it. It still fulfills the Wikipedia guidelines on notability as well as use of reliable sources. Ricktheelectric (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since the article was created today, I'll wait a few days before giving a vote. In its current form, the article reads like a resume listing every episode of every show the subject worked on. The two sources on the article are the same two that come up in a Google search[50]. From what I can find, I don't see anything to substantiate GNG (GNG is only a bare minimum threshold for presumption, not proving the subject is notable) and beyond that I can't think of an argument to make that the subject is notable. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I ran a google search on him, yes was able to see he some film credited to his name, but no good source found to establish his notability.Epcc12345 (talk) 21:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a non-notable light reality show producer. The rest of the bio is just non-notable Redbox/Tubi filler, and uncredited extra work doesn't push this above NACTOR. Nate • (chatter) 01:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. No prejudice, however, against redirecting at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legend Saravanan[edit]

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

Only Done 1 film. Article fails WP:NACTOR and doesn't meet WP:GNG Monhiroe (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Tamil Nadu. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lead in a film with plenty of coverage. Didn't perform at the box office, but still got media attention. ACTOR is met. Oaktree b (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:41, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Saravana Stores: The person do not have significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Fails WP:NACTOR. All the sources about the movie that he produced and acted in the lead role. Fails GNG 116.68.101.209 (talk) 10:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist for more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The film isn't enough for WP:ACTORBIO, but it seems that he just squeaks by on WP:GNG. I'd prefer a redirect to Saravana Stores or The Legend (2022 film) over deletion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Article previously existed under different title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saravanan Arul. DareshMohan (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Given that no source analysis is presented, I'm going to default to those arguing to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emmyblaq[edit]

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

Another GNG article whose sources are mostly paid promotional pieces. Does not meet WP:IS. Nswix (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Nigeria. Nswix (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer nominator.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Extensively sourced to multiple major Nigerian papers of record, with absolutely no evidence presented that the sources are paid journalism. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 05:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no problem with the sources present. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It’s a standard article

Amaekuma (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Phillips[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability. Refs don't meet RS. Cosmo ref looked promising until it turned out to be DL. Nswix (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Nigeria. Nswix (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer nominator.DarkHorseMayhem (talk) 01:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 04:56, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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