< September 21 September 23 >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Michel[edit]

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

Lack of Notability, promotional, conflict of interest editing by subject AncientWalrus (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting and multi-faceted American photographer, entrepreneur and writer. Notable enough to be artist-in-residence at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. And yes, article needs some editing and refs. Vysotsky (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My page was never created or edited for payment. I made factual changes to the pages over the years as information changed. Cmichel67 (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You made all these edits without going through the appropriate pathway for editing with WP:COI: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christopher_Michel&diff=1036499663&oldid=963970346 You changed wording to sound more flattering, you removed a "citation needed" tag etc. AncientWalrus (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AncientWalrus, thank for the ping. Yes that was my comment, I had noticed that the editor who created the article, User:Russavia, has been globally blocked for socking. But the real smoking gun that this article was created purely for promotional purposes WP:PROMO, WP:NOT is this:[2]. I have counted over 170 photographs depicting this photographer, many of them are vanity shots. To my mind, this is a sure sign of conflict of interest editing, promotional editing or undisclosed paid editing. Something's not right here. Netherzone (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. That may be the pattern you've observed but it is not happening here. As per last search, there were 11,912 photos that I made on commons. The majority are auto-uploads from my flickr account of images created with a creative commons license. I did not initiate these uploads or review them (and they include personal photos of me and other family and friends). They were done by a wikipedia editor. There are good images and bad, personal and professional images in my flickr. I believe that practice has stopped. For many many years, the only images I'm uploading are very high quality images of notable people -- astronauts, nobel laureates, authors - images I make for free and give away under a commons license for the public good. For example, I just spend the day with Dr Tony Fauci and made his portrait for the National Academies -- and made the photos available to the commons. I do this as a matter of practice. Just a quick search on commons will be illustrative. Versions of all of these are now on the commons and have been used in many entries. Cmichel67 (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And here is the big gallery of scientist & engineer portraits that I use for the commons. They are all downloadable and usable with a creative commons attribution license. I do this for free. Cmichel67 (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(each thumbnail is a gallery) Cmichel67 (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The metadata tells a slightly different story, it states that you hold the copyright - "all rights reserved" along with your name and website. However, it seems someone must have provided your permission for Russavia to upload them under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license. Netherzone (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to the metadata (could have been created in camera) but all of my uploads are licensed creative commons attribution. And also listed that way on Flickr. What happened many years ago with Russavia and other editors is opaque to me - but none of it was done with anything but good intentions. This conversation is seeming intent on punishing me in some way -- rather than trying to help me and the National Academies better contribute to the community. One would think that our serious dedication to providing high quality photography to commons would be easy to observe -- and would be something to praise not create an environment where people who don't understand all the intricacies of wikipedia and are made to feel badly and are punished. Enforcement of rules is important but creating an environment of generosity, kindness, and civility with the big picture in-mind would seem paramount. I'm trying my best! Cmichel67 (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cmichel67, I totally get that you are here in good faith, and please rest assured that no one is wanting or trying to punish you. The encyclopedia has a labyrinth of guidelines and policies that exist for one main reason (at least IMHO): to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia. These "rules" if you will, have been drafted over many years collaboratively by the community thru the process of consensus. Some of those guidelines have to do with notability, and how it is established for biographies of living persons (and other subjects), and some are specific to their field of practice. Some of our policies are in place so that the encyclopedia is not used/deployed in certain ways. Others have to do with what constitutes an independent, secondary, reliable source, and significant coverage therein. And others have to do with COI. If these structures were not in place every single garage band in the world would have a WP article about them, as would every person out there looking for a job would want one, and every single advertising/PR agency would be clambering for a high-profile free advertising platform read by millions. So periodically we analyze the contents of the encyclopedia. That is why the editors in this discussion are scrutinizing the article that was put forth here. Let the AfD process unfold naturally, the community will decide the best path forward. Your input is welcome, but you don't solely get to decide the outcome. I hope that helps...! Netherzone (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing @Netherzone: please take this discussion and the article tagging in good faith. Thanks for your tremendous contribs to Commons over the yeras! We are sometimes harder on contributors than others, out of a desire not to show preference; this is not at all personal, and certainly no reflection on the quality of your work. – SJ + 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you! Cmichel67 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you Cmichel67 (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few if any articles about the individual. The CBC article is a photo of hot air balloons in Egypt, not the subject of the article, just added as an aside. Working photojournalist it appears. No awards won, no articles about his owrk. Heck one of my photos was 7th place in Wiki Loves Monuments a few years back, I'm nowhere near notable. Oaktree b (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there are many articles about my work Here and here and here etc. In addition, I'm the founder of Military.com, one of the notable web 1.0 companies still around and the largest military membership organization. Cmichel67 (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this will give more context: Bio Cmichel67 (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs and the Daily mail are not acceptable sources. Daily Mail in particular does not fact check or publishes falsehoods, which actually lowers your brand's credentials. I'd avoid working with them... Oaktree b (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks notable in more than one dimension. A rare case of someone with a prolific Commons portfolio who is notable for something other than photography, but the photography seems notable in its own right. I did a bit of cleanup. – SJ + 13:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on how Michel passes GNG? Can you provide two sources that demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Or do you think this is not about GNG but rather a specific photographer criterion? The majority of the links provided by Michel very obviously violate one of the 3 requirements which means they ought to not count. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure -- the subject seems separately GN for founding and selling two companies (primary coverage in non-fiction work, in nyt + wsj, fellowship); for publishing a reference work that was widely reprinted and used in its field; and for photography work which more recently attracted mention by a range of regional or niche outlets (residency, photo communities, news about two separate events/collections). I added a few examples to the article for clarity. – SJ + 19:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. AncientWalrus (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. correction, Cmichel167 has been active on Wikipedia, and of course on commons. My fault for not checking editing history. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your insight and help Cmichel67 (talk) 14:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please pinpoint the references that in your view demonstrate GNG? There are lots of links and most of them definitely violate at least one of the requirements of a source to count for GNG: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It's important to beware that we have someone with a strong COI taking up a lot of space in the discussion. AncientWalrus (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two things 1. On September 19th 2023 you uploaded 16 portraits of Robert Sapolsky so I stand by the observation that the photographs are not curated before being added to the Commons. 2. You seem to be conflating your activities as an editor with the discussion surrounding the notability (by Wikipedia standards) of the photojournalist Christopher Michel. Also, you may want to read WP:BLUDGEON. Best, --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus here and I'll try one more Relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question for @Cmichel67: Given that someone who you've taken a photo of (BWJones) has come here to vote keep, have you contacted him or anyone else on or off Wikipedia asking them to come to your support? See WP:STEALTH. AncientWalrus (talk) 00:27, 23 September 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 08:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of music featured on Doctor Who[edit]

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

This list seems to just be pointless trivia. While it's fun to look through, I don't really see much value in keeping this list around, as a brief search doesn't seem to yield any results indicating that guest music is notable in Doctor Who beyond this one Den of Geek article I found: https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/doctor-who-unforgettable-musical-moments/. While music in Doctor Who seems to be decently notable enough (For instance, the main theme which has its own article) guest music does not seem to demonstrate enough notability to justify a separate list. I don't think there's a viable AtD here, so this is probably one of the few articles I'd suggest outright deletion on. Pokelego999 (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Again, an actual article on the Music of Dr. Who has merit. This current list is not that, though, its just a list of every song ever used in the series with no actual curation limiting it to those that actually had notability or significance, nor any kind of analyses like in the sources you provided. An article about the notable use of music in the series is a valid article - this list is just trivia. Rorshacma (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed with above. I definitely feel like rewrites are going to be a necessity for this article, either to accommodate for these new sources, or for the formation of a completely new article covering music as a whole, not just guest music. Pokelego999 (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out your sources, and these are genuinely very good ones that I can't believe I missed during my search. I'm fine to let the article stay now, though it's definitely going to need some rewrites to accommodate the sources in the future if it does. (If this article stays, might try doing that myself, but I'll see how the current discussion goes in light of these being found.) Pokelego999 (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 22 September 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 08:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tolani Alli[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. See WP:NOTINHERITED. Nothing stands out as notable. Previously draftified. Moved to mainspace immediately after an AFC decline with no changes, so little point in sending back to Draft 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Coverage is promo or passing mentions, nothing significant.
JoelleJay (talk) 23:35, 24 September 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 08:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clear case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Nominating this for AfD alongside List of Israeli civilian casualties in the Second Intifada and Civilian casualties in the Second Intifada. Any individual events can be added to the respective Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict year-by-year event list. Longhornsg (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (all three): These pages are indeed all examples of what is discourage by WP:NOTMEMORIAL writ large, stringing together events without sufficient notability to have had pages created about them. The appropriate place for notable or significantly covered events is indeed at one of the appropriate year-by-year timelines at Template:Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Usefully compiled data for an intensely studied conflict. Can clean up any WP:NOTAMEMORIAL concerns. Mistamystery (talk) 20:02, 23 September 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catnapped![edit]

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

Just a plot recap and character list, so basically cruft. Sources are user-generated and IMDB. Notability seems weak at best. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:03, 22 September 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of mergers in Kagoshima Prefecture[edit]

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

This list of municipal government mergers does not pass WP:LISTN, as I could find no sources discussing these mergers as a group, and as none of the mergers have pages individually it also does not pass WP:SALAT as it serves no navigational purpose. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Pursuant to the provisions of Article 7, Paragraph 1 of the Local Autonomy Act (Act No. 67 of 1948), Ei-cho, Ijuku-gun, Chiran-cho, Kawabe-gun, and Kawabe-cho, Kawabe - gun , were abolished and their areas were abolished.
Even if these were to be interpreted as significant coverage from a discriminating source, these are not lists of mergers but instead single mentions of single events and therefore don't pass WP:LISTN.
The argument that these are required for navigational purposes is also highly dubious. Just WHAT is it supposed to be helping people navigate? The individual mergers have no articles (nor could they) so it is not helping people navigate mergers. The locations do have articles but we already have pages that would assist with navigating them. Arguing that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is the hoariest of old AFD chestnuts.
The argument from Reywas92 is probably the best but it still falls flat - for a page to be a valid WP:SPLIT it has to have stand-along notability and meet the requirements of WP:NOT per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, and this page clearly does not have that. It might be more economical of everyone's time to delete these articles in one go, but Devonian Wombat's strategy of nominating one of them to see what people say is also a valid approach. FOARP (talk) 09:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm convinced by FOARP's assessment that these are little more than entries on prefectural ticker tape that serve no navigational or encyclopedic purpose. The whole lot should go.
JoelleJay (talk) 05:39, 28 September 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 09:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moulvi Syed Qudratullah[edit]

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

Historical scholarship does not document, much less discuss, our subject except as marginalia when discussing a bazaar he had founded which eventually expanded into a town. None of the references in this article are about our subject. As per the rules of Wikipedia, notability is not herited and therefore as there is no sign of independent notability of our subject, this article should be deleted. Jaunpurzada (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:18, 15 September 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! 22:59, 22 September 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 20:03, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Grotts[edit]

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

Lack of notability. No sources in article are enough to establish notability and all a search threw up (a short one, I had to stop before I threw up) were bubbles of self-published guff. Article creator looks very much like either the subject of this bio or a paid contributor. TheLongTone (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She's called on by media as an "etiquette expert" [7], [8] and [9]. Her publication in the Reader's Digest article also has some discussion in the media. She might pass as AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brief mention of the book here [10] Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that any of those links do anything to establish notability.The firstthree merely quote her; they are not about her. I couldt find the mention in the fourth, but I think it takes more than a mention in an alumnus newletter to establish the notability of a book. Two reviews in independant reputable publications, I believe. TheLongTone (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that the perpetrator of this article (whose editing history- ten edits and then this confection- suggests that they are either Ms Grotts herself or a paid lackey of some stripe) could only come with an Amazon listing and something from a PR company as refs for the "book" (more a booklet; only 58 pages) suggest that there is nothing of any substane out there. Is there a different set of notability criteria for pamphlets?TheLongTone (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:59, 22 September 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 NBCSN#Original programming. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NBC SportsTalk[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG as a short-lived television show. Let'srun (talk) 21:51, 22 September 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 Minecraft server#Notable servers. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hive Games[edit]

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

No indication of notability to warrant a standalone article. The scarce articles I've read from reliable, independent sources that do mention it give it barely more than a few words. This was a redirect until several days ago, and I believe it should remain one. Not a debate on deletion, in my opinion, so much as redirecting again to Minecraft server. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:35, 22 September 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Phantoms[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur football team. League isn't even notable enough for an article, so can't redirect. No independent sourcing located. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

changed to keep. The 2-part source from CBL62 and the source posted by Randy Kryn are sufficient to pass GNG. Frank Anchor 10:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table: prepared by User:FormalDude
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Port Charlotte Sun Yes Yes No The source primarily discusses the Florida Veterans, only passing mentions of the Phantoms. ✘ No
Orlando Sentinel part 1, part 2 No As an interview it is a primary source and does not count towards notability. Reads like a regurgitation of the Phantom's self-description. No original independent opinion, analysis, or investigation is offered by the source. Yes Yes ✘ No
Sporting News No The limited info about the team is all provided directly by the Phantom's owner. Yes ? The article mentions the subject briefly, but does not offer in-depth detail. Is primarily about Kyle Farnsworth. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
Please ping me if better sources are found. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The credibility of this chart is undermined given the assertion that a 26-paragraph, multi-column feature story focused entirely on the team does not count toward GNG. It has some quotes, like any well-written feature story, but it is not simply an interview; indeed, less than a third of the massive content consists of quotes. Cbl62 (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struggle to find anything from that source that isn't directly attributed to The Phantoms. 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. This source offers none of that and simply repeats what The Phantoms describe themselves as. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, it is not accurate to assert that the article from Sporting News (a major national player) only mentions the Phantoms briefly. To the contrary, there is a long passage that is all about the Phantoms and doesn't even mention Farnsworth:

Torres has owned and managed the Phantoms since 2011. He first went to an FFA practice that year at the request of a friend, and there were players smoking cigarettes on the sideline. Torres played football in high school and a little bit in arena and semi-pro leagues after that, and just wanted to help somebody. Even though the players are unpaid, Torres said the organizations are in the red every year. "I’m happy helping people get somewhere,” Torres said. “I’ll never remember how much money I had. But I'll remember the people." Torres took the organization and built it into much more. There are three types of players it serves — those looking to get into college, those looking to play in arena leagues, Canada or even the NFL, and those who just want to see if they can play football at a competitive level.

Cbl62 (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A 26-paragraph feature story is a trivial mention? Might as well shut down Wikipedia, as millions of pages have just become null and void. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to the Sporting News content that Cbl62 quoted. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The 26-paragraph story also is not counted as a GNG source in your chart, which is what I was referring to. As for sources, there are many more than previously mentioned when binging "Kyle Farnsworth" and "Orlando Phantoms", including out of CBS in Detroit. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "26-paragraph" Sentinel piece is not counted for a different reason, obviously it has significant coverage. But that CBS story is even more of a trivial mention than Sporting News. ––FormalDude (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • FormalDude -- You lose all credibility when you claim that a 26-paragraph article from a major media outlet focused entirely on the Phantoms (and consisting of < 33% quotes) is just "an interview" and thus not independent. As for the Sporting News piece, it is a closer call, but it is simply not accurate to assert, as you did, that this is only a brief mention. There is, in fact, some depth to the coverage of the team: it (i) identifies the team's owner and (ii) discusses his background in football, (iii) discusses the length of his ownership, (iv) discusses the unpaid status of players, (v) provides the team's financial results (in the red every year), and (vi) reviews the various types of players attracted to the team and their motivations. Cbl62 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just because it's an interview, it's because the whole thing is a puff piece regurgitating the Phantoms with promotional content like:

According to the mission of the Orlando Phantoms, their goal is to develop players who can go abroad to play professionally in the United States, while the team encourages its members to obtain a degree, focus on their families and support each other.

I will admit that the SIGCOV of the Sporting News piece is up for debate, but so is its independence. I've adjusted my source assessment table accordingly. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The "puff piece" is a full feature interview in a major newspaper and independent of the team. Please adjust your chart accordingly, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more opinions since there is such a difference of opinion regarding these sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:30, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WFTV piece appears to be SIGCOV in a reliable source. Not so much on the other two. If I was forced to decide, I'd lean toward keeping based on all the sources found. Cbl62 (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FormalDude: That type of targeted notification seems like blatant canvasing to me. Cbl62 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to meet all the criteria of WP:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How? There's four possibilities mentioned as being appropriate notifications for users: Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article – nope; Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) – I can't recall scope creep having been involved in related discussions – and he himself stated in response to your notification "I don't know much ... about sports in general"; Editors known for expertise in the field – clearly not per his aforementioned reply; and Editors who have asked to be kept informed – I don't think he's asked to be informed about these discussions, let me know if I'm wrong. Also note that I was recently accused of CANVASSING for notifying actually relevant users who clearly met at least three of the four criteria. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well first off those possibilities are just common examples, they are not the only scenarios that editors are permitted to give talk page notifications. In the chart in the next section it says that a notification is appropriate if its scale is a limited posting, the message is neutral, the audience is non-partisan, and the transparency is open. I've met those four criteria.
I would also say it meets the two examples of editors who participated in related topics and editors known for expertise in their field, as Scope creep has participated in numerous discussions about organizations and has a lot of knowledge about the policies surrounding them, so I thought they may have valuable feedback. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That really doesn't make sense because WP:ORG explicitly states: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of ... sports teams." Cbl62 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I didn't know that. I can see the cause for concern, but I assure you I had no intentions of canvassing. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As I see it, this hinges on the usability of the lengthy sentinel source. There are bad arguments on both sides about it; length alone does not make a reliable source usable, it does need to have independent content; but conversely, the presence of quotes and attributed content does not imply that independent content does not also exist. Additional opinions on all the sources, but the Sentinel source in particular, would be helpful in determining consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:33, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond that, I see several non-attributed statements interwoven with interviews of members of the team. Regardless of how "puffy" the piece sounds, as is very common for sports journalism, it's not churnalism, as such, unless we have a reason to doubt the publication or the journalist, such non-attributed statements are SIGCOV as well, as we can expect a level of fact-checking. This would push us well above 300 words of SIGCOV on the team, and even more if we count such coverage of individual team members.
My evaluation is that the source provides SIGCOV of the subject at a standard GNG level. —siroχo 22:25, 22 September 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agnel Gomes[edit]

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

Please do not confuse him with Angel Gomes. The Goan footballer of this name does not seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC with only database coverage like Tribuna found. His 2 professional matches might be enough to survive a PROD but I'm not seeing enough for the article to be kept. The only other coverage that I could find was a trivial mention on SC Goa's Wordpress blog. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:04, 22 September 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kledis Hereki[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. I can't find any decent coverage in Albanian and the one provided Greek source is trivial coverage, with only part of one sentence about him. The only other Greek coverage that I can find are stats pages like Epsana, which SPORTBASIC says does not confer notability. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:49, 22 September 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. Content will be provided to any editor who wishes to do some sort of merge Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Vatican City[edit]

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

There's no sign that this group (of 16 people in 2016) meets WP:GNG. The vast majority of the article is off-topic, being about Vatican-Portuguese relations rather than Portuguese people in Vatican City. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough here or sufficiently notable to warrant an article or satisfy GNG. I note there is an article called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuguese_people#Portuguese_diaspora in need of work that could reasonable incorporate a sentence or a line in a table on the Vatican. Also scope for creating an article on Holy-See Portugal Relations. Hmee2 (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support some sort of split/merge like this. —siroχo 18:59, 26 September 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. G5 actioned by Bbb23 a couple of days ago. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salqin Shura council[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NORG. Sources in the article do not support article notability. BEFORE showed nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth  // Timothy :: talk  18:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Article author blocked as sock [16].  // Timothy :: talk  12:46, 24 September 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. CSD A7. Liz Read! Talk! 22:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya Vishuddhasagar Ji[edit]

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

I was reading about Monk and saw his pics in Monk#Jainism section...so i came to inform that this person has no significance and just staying with one ref which is from facebook, just self promoting like stuff ... remove its redirects too ... And pls verify if there is any sock puppets like stuff present in this case, ty - AwfulReader(talk) 18:03, 22 September 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

War and Peace characters order by appearance[edit]

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

This article is not needed; the intent is served by List of War and Peace characters. If we want to change that list into sequential order, that can be discussed, but what purpose is there to have two identical (ideally, if not in practice) lists of characters, with the only difference being their order? Also, verification of this list seems to be prohibitively difficult.

However, what really struck me are the number of 'blanks' in this article, which should never be included in the article space, but which seem to be here permanently. Examples include "In Book Four????" and "he tells ___________ that" and "In Book xx, He becomes a partisan leader in 1812 (Book .....)." So even though deletion isn't clean up, this only adds additional bases for deletion. Anything useful can be merged to the main list.

In conclusion, being one of the greatest works ever does not mean that War and Peace is exempt from common sense list guidelines. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 17:30, 22 September 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Estonia[edit]

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

There's no sign that this small group meets WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:24, 22 September 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liban Soleman[edit]

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

This appears to be just a resume of a regular person who has had some government jobs and now works in the private sector. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:05, 22 September 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty and the Beast: Ugly Face of Prejudice[edit]

Beauty and the Beast: Ugly Face of Prejudice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2011 DonaldD23 talk to me 14:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:54, 22 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Selvaraj[edit]

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

This has been speedied, draftified and bringing it here for some form of consensus. I am not sure whether the sourcing establishes notability, nor her first in the field, however I am not certain. Star Mississippi 14:41, 22 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Global TV Demand Awards[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Not subject of independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. All found sources refer to the subject shows winning one of these awards vs the awards show themselves. spryde | talk 14:39, 22 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese neighborhood[edit]

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

I don't even know where to begin with trying to source this article, and since it's been problematic for 12 years this may be the best venue. It's not at all clear to me what from the sole source has been included in this article. I suspect it's far too broad for anyone without particular expertise to turn anything up. ~TPW 14:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per NOM --Shrike (talk) 15:17, 25 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Slovakia[edit]

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

There's no sign that this group meets WP:GNG. A whole series of these articles has been created through copy-pasting without sufficient attention to notability and with very similar content (which likely explains why the article mistakes Slovakia and Slovenia in its lede). Much of the content (such as on Slovaks who speak Portuguese) is off-topic. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:05, 22 September 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automotive Video Association[edit]

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

Not notable, relies on primary sources, absence of secondary sources Idiosincrático (talk) 14:02, 22 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Taiwan independence sentiment[edit]

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

I could not find any reliable sources that clearly spelt out the mission of anti Taiwan Independent people and the sources on Anti-Taiwan Independence Sentiment are pass mentioned Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:56, 22 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sack of Cyprus (1368)[edit]

Sack of Cyprus (1368) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

5 out of the 6 sources that are cited don't appear to support the content that is attributed to them (I haven't checked the German source and I doubt it would be any different). They all mention a certain Ibrahim Tazi who was in Alexandria and working for the Mamluks, which would be inline with what the RS say about the relations between the Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt (nothing to do with the Marinids) and the kingdom of Cyprus. M.Bitton (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom. All I could find that year was The Mamlukes repulsed another Crusader attack on Alexandria in 1365 and responded by building a small fleet to ravage the coasts of Cyprus in 1368.[19] nothing about Cyprus vs Marinid. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have found nothing to support this. Srnec (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV --Shrike (talk) 15:14, 25 September 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bartosz Źrebiec[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2014, this Polish musician presents no notability other than as guitarist of Grimlord and that article, as a redirect (and AtD) is not really sufficient as Grimlord is itself not inherently notable per WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:43, 22 September 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. Snow, or take your pick of the first three. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Bear[edit]

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

Another one of those singers who barely achieved anything, then suddenly became "notable" after participating in a reality show. Pottyantós WC (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Point two of NMUSIC says "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart", it doesn't say you have to be the original performer. But even taking that argument at its best, that still leaves two songs that have passed point 2 of NMUSIC. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any scope for closing this early? The nominator has been blocked and it seems it's WP:SNOWing. I'm not overly familiar with AfD procedures so I said I'd ask. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 12:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ser!: If the sockpuppetry is confirmed (which is seeming likely) the article can be speedily kept and the nomination deleted as a banned contribution. Deauthorized. (talk) 17:59, 24 September 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. WP:NPASR (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leander Kills[edit]

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

WP:RUNOFTHEMILL band only known for participating on a reality show - I suppose WP:REALITYSINGER applies to bands as well? - Pottyantós WC (talk) 14:47, 22 September 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Paetz[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG - role as sports anchor and producer has not resulted in SIGCOV in RS, neither has her authorship of 'Blocked : An Unobstructed Dating Narrative about the Undesirable' - strangely not mentioned in an otherwise breathless biography. Beyond the promotional tone, the article does nothing to establish notability and no further SIGCOV was unearthed in a WP:BEFORE (although the book was!)... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify? Are the sources inadequate to support WP:GNG or is the bio too short? Stella8358 (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing found is too short and doesn't support GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 27 September 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maddy Cusack[edit]

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

Fails GNG with a lack of significant coverage on her. Don't be fooled by the refbombing - the articles do not cover Cusack in detail. Also WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here. Dougal18 (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t let this page get deleted 92.40.215.239 (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oaktree b. History6042 (talk) 01:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There exists coverage in reliable sources [27]
I would also like to point out that per guides for footballers, a game in a tier is usually enough. This footballer has more than 100 games for her club, and was the first one to do so. Kirill C1 (talk) 10:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
N:FOOTBALL has been scrapped. There has to be significant coverage in reliable sources. A few lines on her career combined with quotes doesn't cut it.Dougal18 (talk) 10:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When?
It doesn't make sense not having a rule for the most popular sport while there are rules for less popular,and even amateur. Kirill C1 (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If she doesn't meet Wikipedia policy WP:GNG, then the article shouldn't be kept. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
She meets Wikipedia policy. Kirill C1 (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question - at what point is a concensus reached and the article is either deleted or unmarked for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPAG checker (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The sourcing is exclusively reports of her death, with nothing actually demonstrating she was the subject of sustained, significant coverage. The article fails NOTNEWS, NOTMEMORIAL, and BLP1E/BIO1E.
JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The present SIGCOV is not about her death, it is just being published after her death.
If you're mentioning WP:NOTNEWS, the only part of that I can imagine being relevant to an RD bio is "not celebrity ticker" - but that's about "just because a notable person did something, doesn't mean the thing is notable enough to mention". Unless you're suggesting the bio is a current events article?
You surely know that WP:NOTMEMORIAL is just a reminder that new articles about deceased people must meet other notability guidelines, that it isn't a guideline in itself, i.e. referring to it is not a reason to delete.
How about you learn what the policies you love to overcite without any elaboration actually mean before continuing at AfD. Your !votes are always misleading at best. Kingsif (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage is about her death with a few lines about her career. "she played 100 times/works in marketing/list of previous clubs" is not SIGCOV regardless of how many times it is spammed in her article. Dougal18 (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigcov asks that the RS coverage has more than passing mention about the subject — it feels like you're trying to say that there isn't enough in the sources about just the football to demonstrate that the subject is notable as an individual, when the point of Sigcov is that having sources dedicated about the subject shows that the RS editorially considers them notable enough to write extensively about. So it's not to the same extent but it seems like you are (probably unintentionally as vague references to policy do over time deviate) also tweaking what the guidelines actually are with a mind to deletion. Kingsif (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter if the content is what we would normally consider "significant" if it fails WP:SUSTAINED. JoelleJay (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calling second flight a lower league seems like deliberate downplaying; it's still a pro league. Lack of independent Sigcov at the time can also be seen with female footballers achieving such milestones in Chanpions League teams, we're not here to RGW but we can accept simply belated sources for something that we all know is notable. Kingsif (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we're not here to RGW no we aren't, so if she doesn't pass WP:GNG, then she shouldn't have an article. And nobody (not even any of the keep voters) have demonstrated multiple sources of significant coverage, which is what GNG requires. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of those are just reprints of the same information, which is just a basic career summary. The same thing reprinted in 20 newspapers doesn't make it more significant coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All of those are just reprints" That's simply false, and I don't understand why you would resort to such misrepresntation. By way of example, there are five or six completely separate pieces in The Daily Mail alone. You also ignore the main point -- the worldwide interest in this person bears importantly on her notability. I think you have become too invested in trying to delete this article. Cbl62 (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's not personalise this? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out a blatant misrepresentation of fact is not personalizing. Cbl62 (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my comment below instead of repeating the same baseless accusations. The sources that are reliable sources are almost all reprints of the Associated Press. I don't require a reply of you accusing me of misrepresenting yet again... Joseph2302 (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I think you have become too invested in trying to delete this article." is pretty personal. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) The Sun and Daily Mail aren't reliable sources, so I ignored them from your list (and they cannot be considered towards WP:GNG as they are both perennial sources). All of the other countries' articles are just translations of the same basic information about her- it isn't significant coverage as per the Wikipedia definition. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BBC and The Times are among the most reliable sources known to mankind. Also, I am familiar with the Wikipedia definition of WP:SIGCOV, and each of the articles linked "addresses the topic directly and in detail" and consists of "more than a trivial mention." I am trying to better understand your fierce opposition to the Maddy Cusack article. As someone who has created so many stand-alone articles on women with far less SIGCOV than Cusack (e.g., Kathleen Lidderdale, Judith Webb), it is somewhat puzzling. Cbl62 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're going ad hominem here - can we perhaps stick to the policy based discussion? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. The assertion that all 20-some articles were "reprints" riled me up a bit. Cbl62 (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other articles I've created are irrelevant to this discussion. I don't have an agenda with this article, contrary to what Cbl62 is trying to accuse me of. I don't require any further responses from this editor who just wants to accuse me of some made up bias, WP:ANI will be consulted if they continue this line of attack. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I struck my comment about your other articles and expressed my agreement with Alexandermcnabb's apt suggestion before you added your last comment about WP:ANI. Nothing I wrote was intended as a personal attack. I apologize if you viewed it that way and suggest we move on. You are, of course, free to consult ANI if you feel strongly. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Things get reported widely in the news all the time. That doesn't mean they are notable. Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time means that the attention should be received over a significant period of time, not just in a short burst. We've maintained this standard for thousands of victims of tragedies who are profiled significantly in worldwide media upon their death and then never discussed again.
This and this BBC pieces are primary reporting entirely in the context of her death. The Times piece is another version of the second BBC article. The Sun and Daily Mail are deprecated so can't be used for anything here (I recommend adding this script that highlights consensus-unreliable sources in pink). Each of the other sources you mention is a variation on the same announcement of her death. If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual. JoelleJay (talk) 17:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Women athletes do not get reported on this widely "all the time." To the contrary, the coverage here is worldwide and quite extraordinary for a woman athlete. People can and often do pass WP:GNG based on coverage that develops at the time of death -- it is a natural time to summarize and report on the person's life accomplishments. I've not previously seen editors try to use the "one-event" guideline to exclude obituary coverage. That's not consistent with my understanding. The "one-event" guideline applies to someone who has briefly received coverage of a single event in their lives. Here, coverage that follows the end of a person's life, and delves into their life's accomplishments (in this case a long athletic career), is quite different. Moreover, the rule you quote refers to "low-profile individuals" and professional athletes are the antithesis of low-profile individuals. Cbl62 (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't independent, in-depth obituaries, they are primary news reports on someone's sudden untimely death that include some details about her athletic career. We should not be evaluating notability based on what we think a normal amount of coverage "for a woman athlete" is, because this is not coverage of an athlete's accomplishments, it's coverage of a 27-year-old's mysterious and sudden death that repeats the exact same facts about her career as found in her club's press releases/AP: SUFC player since 2019, marketing executive for SUFC, reached the milestone of 100 appearances for SUFC, named vice-captain last month, longest-serving player in current squad, former youth player, list of former clubs, quotes from Stephen Bettis. These are not intellectually independent sources.
And who says a pro athlete is automatically high-profile? JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources cover the tragic circumstances of her death and also cover her life and career in sufficient depth to constitute SIGCOV (I thought you had conceded that point above). The guideline's usage of "low profile" is derived from defamation and right of privacy/publicity laws wherein the law gives lesser protections to public figures. Under those bodies of law, it's pretty clear that someone who pursues a 12-year career as a professional athlete, performing their job in front of crowds of spectators, and who is also a "marketing executive" for the club, has not chosen a "low profile" lifestyle. Cbl62 (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider the coverage of her career to be SIGCOV, I was only stating that even if it was SIGCOV it would not pass our requirement for SUSTAINED coverage. And anyway the material about her career in these sources does not count toward notability because it is churnalized wholly from press releases. These are not independent sources separately researching her career, they are pure derivatives of at best one "independent" source (AP), which is itself almost entirely a repetition of a press release.
Performing in a team sport does not automatically make someone a public figure, but that's also irrelevant because WP:N and NOTNEWS state that all subjects must receive sustained coverage, regardless of how "public" they are. JoelleJay (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1) The coverage of her career is SIGCOV. We disagree on that. 2) The very guideline you cited/quoted makes the connection between the need for sustained coverage with the person being low-profile, 3) the BBC, The Times, and the Associated Press are among mankind's most respected sources, not outlets for churnalism. Cbl62 (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. News updates on the circumstances around her death are primary; if they were actually significant secondary independent coverage that would be a justification to create an article on the event "death of Maddy Cusack" instead of a biography, but they also fail NEVENT. The coverage of her career is wholly derivative of the press releases and therefore does not constitute independent secondary coverage regardless of how significant it is.
2. WP:N has no requirement that a subject be low-profile. I mistakenly cited BLP1E instead of SUSTAINED, but anyway BLP1E doesn't mean living* people of sufficiently high profile are the sole exceptions to our requirement that all subjects receive sustained attention. It is just applied as another means of protection for random people who receive coverage for some event.
3. Of course BBC and The Times can engage in churnalism. It would be slightly different if these news articles were actually going into significant, independent biographical detail, but they are not. They are regurgitating the same set of facts that were included in the press releases[28][29] and/or AP. The BBC news pieces are reporting an update on her inquest and a tribute paid toward her. What biographical info on her career do they provide outside the context of her death?

Cusack had been at the club since 2019 and became the first player to reach 100 appearances for the women's team last season. She also worked as a marketing executive at the Women's Championship club, who said they were "devastated" by her death. ... Cusack also played for Birmingham, Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest before joining the Blades.

[30]

Midfielder Cusack - the first player to reach 100 appearances for the club's women's team last season - died last week aged 27. ... Cusack - who had been at the club since 2019 and also worked in the club's marketing department ...

[31]
The Times piece has these details:

The Sheffield United midfielder Maddy Cusack has died at the age of 27, the club have announced.
Cusack, named vice-captain last month, had just started her sixth season with the Yorkshire club in the Women’s Championship and was the longest-serving player in their squad. ... Cusack joined Sheffield United halfway through their first campaign in the women’s second tier in January 2019 and last season became the first woman to reach 100 appearances for the club. ... The former England youth international signed a new contract extension in July.

[32]
So again, where is the independent biographical coverage that demonstrates she is notable for her athletic career and not her death? JoelleJay (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which news reports contain encyclopedic info on her career background that goes significantly beyond what is contained here:
SUFC:

Sheffield United Football Club is devastated to report the sad news of the passing of Maddy Cusack.

Maddy, a women's team player since 2019 and marketing executive for the Football Club, passed away on Wednesday.

A respected player, Maddy, 27, last season reached the milestone of 100 appearances for Sheffield United Women. Additionally, she was a valued colleague in the offices at Bramall Lane, moving over from the Sheffield United Community Foundation to the Club in 2021 to help market all areas of the Blades.

Stephen Bettis, United's chief executive officer, commented: "This is heartbreaking news for everyone at Bramall Lane. Maddy had a unique position of being part of a number of teams at Sheffield United and was popular with everyone that she came into contact with. Her personality and professionalism made her a credit to her family - she will be sadly missed. Whilst taking in the news and moving forward, the Club will offer as much support as possible to Maddy's family, friends and colleagues."

Discussions over suitable tributes and celebrating Maddy's life will continue privately. The Club and Maddy's family would appreciate a period of privacy and will not comment further at this sad time.

AP:

Maddy Cusack, a midfielder for the Sheffield United women’s team, has died at the age of 27, the club said Thursday.

The team didn’t disclose any details about Cusack’s death. She was named as United’s vice-captain last month and had just started her sixth season with the team in the second-tier Women’s Championship, making her the longest-serving player in the current squad.

“Sheffield United Football Club is devastated to report the sad news of the passing of Maddy Cusack,” the club said. “Maddy, a women’s team player since 2019 and marketing executive for the football club, passed away on Wednesday.”

Cusack, a former England youth international, signed a contract extension with the club in July.

“This is heartbreaking news for everyone at Bramall Lane,” chief executive Stephen Bettis said. “Maddy had a unique position of being part of a number of teams at Sheffield United and was popular with everyone that she came into contact with.

“Her personality and professionalism made her a credit to her family — she will be sadly missed.”

JoelleJay (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty thin reed upon which to accuse the BBC and The Times of having engaged in churnalism. That multiple news organizations report the same facts is not evidence that they have done something untoward or unethical or engaged in what you call churnalism. Rather, it is evidence that the facts are the facts. You have no idea the extent of fact-checking and/or independent reporting undertaken by the BBC, The Times, and the Associated Press. For you to leap to the conclusion that each of these preeminent news organizations is simply engaging in unethical practices is rank speculation. If this type of argument were to prevail, then our reliable sourcing standards would be open to attack in every case. There are certain news sources that we can and should trust based on a long history of reliability and reputation for careful fact-checking: BBC and The Times would be at the top of that list. In cases where news organizations simply reprint press releases, an appeal to "churnalism" may be appropriate. But an attempt to neutralize reporting by the world's most respected news organizations, simply because there is an alignment of facts (and because, not surprisingly, the team's statements are a fundamental starting point in any reportage on this story), is several bridges too far. Cbl62 (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian (here) is yet another reliable source, and it has even more biographical information. The biographical facts reported by The Guardian include: (1) Cusack was "a Sheffield United footballer", (2) Cusack "died at the age of 27"; (3) Cusack "played for the women's team since 2019"; (4) Cusack made "more than 100 appearances for the club"; (5) Cusack "also worked for the club as a marketing executive"; (6) "the cause of death has not been disclosed"; (7) Cusack was "part of a number of teams at Sheffield United"; (8) Cusack "was popular with everyone that she came into contact with"; (9) "Cusack was the first player to reach 100 appearances for the club"; (10) Cusack previously worked for Sheffield United Community Foundation until 2021; (11) Cusack had recently "entered her sixth season"; (12) Cusack "also represented England at age-group level"; and (13) Cusack "previously played for Birmingham City". Cbl62 (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The further one digs, the clearer it becomes that the major newspapers have not simply copied and pasted the same seven facts from a press release. There are interviews with various sources and varying degrees of factual background included in the accounts . For example, The Independent (here) reported the following facts: (1) Cusack was "Sheffield United's longest-serving women's player"; (2) Cusack died at the age of 27; (3) Cusack was a midfielder; (4) Cusack "was named vice-captain last month:' (5) Cusack "had just started her sixth season"; (6) Cusack "had made over 100 appearances for the club" and "reached the milestone" in the prior season; (7) Cusack was "a women's team player since 2019"; (8) Cusack was also a "marketing executive for the Football Club"; (9) Cusack moved over from Sheffield United Community Foundation to the club's offices at Brmall Lane in 2921; (10) Cusack helped market all areas of the Blades football team; (11) "Cusack joined the Blades halfway through their first campaign" in January 2019; (12) Cusack was a "fomer England youth itnernational" player; and (13) Cusack "had signed a new contract extension with the Blades in July". Cbl62 (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. First of all, churnalism isn't "unethical", it's a widespread practice in journalism that, as the research I cited states, is employed by The Times, the BBC, The Guardian, basically everywhere. You think any of these newspapers is individually instructing reporters to research Cusack's career in-depth? No, this is a low-importance human-interest news piece so all their original reporting is limited to the primary developments surrounding her death. These aren't obituaries.
Second: literally every single one of those facts comes from the press releases. Not a single item is fresh. They even use the exact same wording! Rehashing the info from contemporaneous press releases is the definition of churnalism and is explicitly discounted from GNG.
Third: even if it wasn't derived from PR, this material would constitute one source. None of the papers are providing any additional biographical info whatsoever, let alone SIGCOV, so it doesn't even meet GNG anyway.
Fourth: Even if coverage met GNG it would not constitute SUSTAINED attention. The only reason anyone is mentioning her sports career at all is due to one event, and the coverage is all inextricably linked to that event. It would be different if there was some sort of retrospective where the focus wasn't on the circumstances of her death, but that is not the case. JoelleJay (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Dude"? What did I do to earn the title? As a Lebowski fan, I'm honored. Anyway, you're over-expansive assertion of churnalism, and your bald assertion that no fact-checking was done, is pure speculation and is undercut by the strong reputation for fact-checking by these preeminent sources. It's also undercut by the fact that each of the articles is presenting different subsets of fact in different ways. They are not simply reprinting a press release. The fact that "the facts are the facts" does not turn these reliable sources into unreliable (or unethical) churnalism factories. Cbl62 (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is coverage that is enough for article.
We can write a fairly long article on her, coverage is significant. Kirill C1 (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maddy Cusack confident Neil Redfearn can take Sheffield United Women in FA Women’s Superleague (The Yorkshire Post, Sept 2020)
Maddy Cusack agrees new deal with Sheffield United Women (The Star, June 2021)
Maddy Cusack: Long-serving Sheffield United midfielder commits to club for another season (The Star, May 2022) Ackatsis (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of sentences specifically on Cusack does not pass GNG. Contract signings is routine coverage. If it wasn't then every footballer who signs a couple of contracts would be entitled to a Wiki article.Dougal18 (talk) 18:06, 27 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella Baldacchino (Actress)[edit]

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

The sourcing in this article is unusually poor and it has consequently made its way to and from draft, plonked straight back into mainspace with a distinct whiff of socks and UPE accompanying it. Fails WP:GNG; WP:NACTOR and even AGF is tested by the likelihood of UPE. The line "Gabriella Baldacchino was born on November 20, 2001, to her parents." is, however, a classic... Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TBF, if you're going to be born, those are the people to be born to... --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:15, 22 September 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 Proto-Indo-European mythology#Smith god. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-European smith god[edit]

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

The page boldly asserts proto indo-europeans had a smith god in their pantheon, but this goes well beyond the sources. The first source cited actually says, "The argument for a single mythical prototype is not strong." (West, 2007:156). As the page notes, there are many smith gods in the daughter linguistically-defined groups that speak indo-european languages, but it failed to mention what the sources say, that smiths are also found in most non indo-european cultures too (I have added that now). One major issue that this page fails to grapple with is that proto-indoeuropean culture is a proto culture that groups descend from, going back well before the iron age, and in some cases to before the bronze age (copper age). It is not clear that a smith god associated with iron (the magic of removing metal from a rock in very high heat) would be in any way related to a god of bronze or copper working. The fact that there is no commonality of gods in daughter cultures lends strength to this reasoning. Yet if there were a god, there is almost nothing that can be said about it, and so a wikipedia page is not possible. This is already fully covered in [46] and I am not convinced a redirect is required as it doesn't seem like a plausible search term - but I don't object to redirect if others feel it is. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the proposed target. Not implausible as a search term IMO and it leaves the article history intact in case there is anything useful to merge. (Edit: I considered a rename to something like "Indo European smith god hypothesis" but it does not seem to be notable even as a hypothesis/theory and there is very little info on Google Scholar). (t · c) buidhe 08:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Buidhe. Srnec (talk) 21:16, 24 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Lithuania[edit]

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

There's no sign that this group (of 87 people in 2022) meets WP:GNG. The article is padded out with information on trade between the two countries, NATO, etc., presumably to make up for the lack of in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:49, 22 September 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

William John Corbet[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Escaping the German occupation of Guernsey in the Second World War is not especially notable and does not make him, as his article claims, a "World War II hero". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:04, 22 September 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 Chinese rock#Rock in China. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rock in China[edit]

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

This is a defunct wiki website, citing a few low-reliability sources in reception, all very poorly formatted and even more poorly referenced (two footnotes, both to the website or affiliates). The only source that seems to offer a veneer of hope here is [47] (Beijing Review) although it is about the website creator and mentions the website in passing, failing WP:SIGCOV. No zh or other interwiki. I fear for now this fails WP:GNG. Can anyone dig sources (in Chinese, perhaps) to rescue this? My BEFORE is not helpful, generic name of the website is not helping either. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:02, 22 September 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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Barhouma[edit]

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

The sourcing is pretty terrible here, consisting of personal bios on a handful of websites that the subject has worked for. The page reads like a pretty classic curriculum vitae, and was worse before I trimmed the more gratuitous elements. On the face of it, the case for notability is poor to non-existent, and a search for the subject in English language sources is not promising. Better results may exist in an Arabic search, but there aren't currently any other sources on the Arabic version of the page either. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 09:39, 22 September 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. (non-admin closure) WJ94 (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DD Osama[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper, sources don't come even close to meeting WP:GNG, and a search finds nothing better. With one mixtape under their belt, no chance of meeting WP:MUSICBIO either. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree with the points mentioned above that show the subject has had multiple reliable sources cover his music. The subject is also still only 16 years old and is already signed to a major record label. He meets Criteria 1 of WP:MUSICBIO and unless he stops making music, he will likely pass Criteria 3 and 5 of WP:MUSICBIO too. Hiphopsavedmylife (talk) 06:28, 29 September 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 by nominator. Fram (talk) 14:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Battagram cable car incident[edit]

2023 Battagram cable car incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability, a typical WP:NOTNEWS incident with lots of coverage when it happens as it is spectacular. Fram (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at the very least, redirect to Aerial tramway#List of accidents. There's an analysis by Reuters published 6 days after the incident [51] and sustained coverage 5 days after that [52], as well as this on Sep 5th [53], which clearly shows at least some form of sustained coverage after the initial news cycle passed. S5A-0043Talk 08:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Howard Van Pelt[edit]

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

Lack of notability. This is one of a group created by the same author and listed at Template talk:List of Sea Captains and Pilots. As was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles O. Beebe, being a maritime pilot does not in and of itself confer notability on these people. These articles are those where this is the only apparent claim to notability. Melcous (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages where the only claim to notability made is being a maritime pilot in the same period/location:

  1. :James Howard Van Pelt (the one in title)
  2. :John Joseph Canvin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  3. :Howard Van Pelt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  4. :William C. Fowler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  5. :James Llewellyn Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  6. :James M. Dolliver (pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  7. :Joseph W. Colby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  8. :Franklin B. Wellock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Also delete: John Joseph Canvin, Howard Van Pelt, William C. Fowler, James Llewellyn Smith, James M. Dolliver (pilot), Joseph W. Colby, Franklin B. Wellock. Their sourcing is similar to that for James Howard Van Pelt, also inadequate. Nothing that could be considered to be significant coverage, peppered with Ancestry and Family Search faux references. For the avoidance of doubt, delete all as WP:ROTM maritime pilots, doing their hazardous jobs, sometimes dying while performing their roles. Dying on the job is not qualification for notability. I have spent time checking the references for each article. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: to the closer of this discussion: It is not my intent to appear to have offered more than one !vote. My opinion should be read as one delete opinion per article nominated. It stands for each article individually, though they are nominated as a batch. I had not seen the other nominations when offering my first opinion. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how do you feel about Frank P. Van Pelt and Augustus Van Pelt I just noticed them while peeling the onion. I don't know if those are part of the walled garden series. Graywalls (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: they certainly could be added in here if others think they should. I tried to start with those from the list that didn't have any other claims to notability in them, no matter how weak. I still think almost all on the list should eventually end up going through this process, I just wasn't sure about doing too many in one AfD. Melcous (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls, @Melcous May I suggest this AfD has all it ought to have in it at present? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Timtrent: my intention was to keep this manageable, as per @Liz:'s comment below that people need to look at and comment on all the articles that are bundled. I would imagine another group could be done together where there are claims about awards that the editor has suggested make them notable (I do not believe they do); and some probably do need to be looked at individually. But this is the first time I have done a bundled AfD, so I'm happy for someone more experienced to make the call.Melcous (talk) 03:11, 23 September 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! 06:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Bosnia and Herzegovina[edit]

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

There's no sign that this likely very small group meets WP:GNG. The article is padded out with information on trade and other relations between the two countries, presumably to make up for the lack of in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:37, 22 September 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! 06:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in North Macedonia[edit]

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

There's no sign that this group (of 18 people in 2021) meets WP:GNG, even if the article tells us that "It is worth noting that 13 people held both Portuguese and Macedonian citizenship" (!). The article is padded out with information on trade between the two countries, NATO, etc., presumably to make up for the lack of in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:31, 22 September 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! 06:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Montenegro[edit]

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

There's no sign that this group (of potentially only four people in 2014) meets WP:GNG. The article is padded out with information on trade between the two countries, NATO, etc., presumably to make up for the lack of in-depth coverage of the topic in reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:24, 22 September 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 Cycling at the 1948 Summer Olympics – Men's sprint. Liz Read! Talk! 06:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rusi Mulla Feroze[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, violates WP:NOTDATABASE. BilledMammal (talk) 06:51, 22 September 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! 06:07, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese in Albania[edit]

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

"There were 8 Portuguese citizens residing in Albania in 2019" says this article and that, milords, is where I rest my case. Despite quite a lot of fancy window dressing, a Wikipedia article dedicated to the lives of eight worthy people is something I think we should consider as worthy of deletion as it contains virtually no salient content. Just, just possibly a redirect to Albania-Portugal relations? Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's unfortunate because this is a well-written article with sources, but unless the 8 Portuguese Albanians are notable as a group (which I somehow doubt), the article is a bunch of figures tied together by WP:OR. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 15:47, 23 September 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! 05:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DIRT (band)[edit]

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Tagged over 3 years ago with no improvement (!make that 13 years ago). Defunct band, unlikely to generate in-depth third-party coverage in the future. JFHJr (㊟) 23:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aintabli (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE per nom. fails WP:BAND cannot find any mentions except for a few blogs. Wafflesvarrg (talk) 14:00, 22 September 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! 03:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Leslie (footballer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aintabli (talk) 04:49, 22 September 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 National Indemnity Company. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Berkshire Hathaway GUARD Insurance Companies[edit]

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

Mostly primary sourced article which seems more like a press release. Appears to have been written by a handful of IP's. As an AtD, could be stubbed down and/or merged into a larger Berkshire article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 22 September 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. I see a consensus here to Keep this article but also a discussion regarding a possible rename should begin on the article talk page as this seemed to be a major point of contention on this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parental rights movement[edit]

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

Most of the sources do not refer to a "parental rights movement", although some refer to cited concerns about "parental rights". The page simply seems redundant given these existing pages:

Delete/merge? Zenomonoz (talk) 03:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Reywas92's frustration but I can't agree with this argument for renaming. First up, we have to call things by what they are actually called, per WP:COMMONNAME, even when those names are blatant misnomers. Secondly, we want to help our readers to find the right article as easily as possible. If they hear somebody talking about the "parental rights movement", think it sounds confusing, and decide to look it up on Wikipedia then we want them to find the information they want either in the place that they expect to find it or redirected from there. It is not for us to impose our own name on it. Of course, it would be different if there already was a more neutral alternative name or term, as with "Pro-Life" redirecting to Anti-abortion movements. I think that is what people are thinking when they argue for folding this into those other articles. It is an arguable point but I don't think they map exactly enough for this to be a good idea. Particularly if it is true that this movement is not exclusively anti-LGBT and that is has roots going back a few decades, this would seem to be separate from, although unarguably related to, those other topics. So, unless there is a better name that actually satisfies WP:COMMONNAME, I think we are stuck with the current name. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually now reading the google scholar link that Zenomonoz linked further up about Parental Rights movement from 2005 - it looks like this was a totally different and entirely unrelated issue that has absolutely no overlap with the current dogwhistle use of the term in current politics, which means we are entering ambiguous article title and content territory, plus then we should examine whether there is any link really, or just a reuse of the same term that was used and in that case, it does still look like the modern discourse is entirely anti-LGBT.
So this article then has to be completely re-written to talk about that movement from 2005 and then the modern re-use of the term, but for entirely different grounds if it wants to discuss the term and not just current events. Raladic (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This subject still needs some discussion. We title articles the terms used by reliable souces, whatever that might be. Of course, presence of a stand-alone article on a subject does DOESN'T (big mistake on my part) imply endorsement by Wikipedia. But I still don't see a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:22, 22 September 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! 04:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lighthouse Trails Publishing[edit]

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

The article seems to lack substance as well as anything that establishes enough notability for it to exist in Wikipedia. There is a lack of good sourcing. When doing an internet search for Lighthouse Trails Publishing, nothing really comes up except for one article by the Christian Post, something from Moody Publishing, and the rest are links to the Lighthouse Trails website. It was nominated for deletion years ago, with it being deleted and then undeleted with those caring for the article saying they would work on improvement. As it stands, there wasn't much improved upon from my perspective. I don't think notability has been established all these years since the article was created. It reads like an advertisement to me. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination counts as your Delete vote so I've struck your duplicate vote. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know but now I do! Thanks for the notification. A4M2 Alaska4Me2 (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Again, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:12, 22 September 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. This is not the first time I've seen this with an "event" type article of this nature, where there is substantial disagreement over whether the references meet the requirements of sustained coverage beyond "breaking news" type material, and at the end of the day no consensus is reached. I might, therefore, encourage some general discussion over that subject and maybe the formulation of some RfC questions on it, to perhaps develop a consensus on what standards the community wishes to set for the inclusion of articles on events, rather than trying to hash out the issue at many individual AfDs. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Philadelphia shooting[edit]

2022 Philadelphia shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable crime. News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EFFECT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, spare me the lecture on civility and direct your comment at the editor who clearly enjoys hounding me, calling me a liar, casting aspersions, and voting delete in any article by me brought to AfD. I've had enough, and I've asked Scope creep to leave me alone many times. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They're has been 470 mass shootings in America this year already. I don' see crime articles as being particularly notable, since each event is so generic in terms of its commonality. The same thing happens everywhere all the time. There is very little that differentiates them and the reporting is exactly the same in almost every instance. Ultimately folk on Wikipedia who create these articles are not interested in the special and unique, instead decide to record the mundane and common. Lastly, I never knew this was an article that Another Believer's wrote. But either way, it is just another generic crime article that is exactly the same as all the others. scope_creepTalk 16:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:scope creep, don't you look at the page history when evaluating articles for AFD? Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No I never look at article contribution history, there is no value in it. The first thing I look at is the article content, then the references, then do a WP:BEFORE to see if there is anything else that can support the article. To repeat the message above. I've no interest in Wikipedia of becoming a directory of shooting's or crimes, which it seems to be starting to do. It puzzles me why folk seem to latch onto individual instances of criminal events, as dreadful as they are, and think that somehow that because they are heavily reported that somehow make them notable. It doesn't. All crimes are heavily reported, even when they are identical. At best it makes them instances of a single type of a crime event, that crimologists don't even look at over historical time, never mind historians of crime and its effects. At the end ,we will end up with reams, 10000's of crime articles that are almost identical in there nature, while the real articles, academic articles that examine crime and history of crime don't get written. Instead its this low-hanging fruit. Its junk really. scope_creepTalk 06:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which is the purpose of WP:NEVENT, which no one else seems to read, much less follow. The word, 'and', appears to be of particular difficulty for many editors: have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, is the big one, as echoed in the Background section. A rule of thumb for creating a Wikipedia article is whether the event is of lasting, historical significance, and the scope of reporting (national or global reporting is preferred). Attempts to explain any of that ends with (at best) a perfunctory 'agree to disagree' as you can see above. Since policy arguments are seen by most closers as no more persuasive than emotional pleas, we are ending up exactly where you say, with many thousands of articles on shock news. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scope creep, I wish I could just copy-and-paste this for my justification whenever I nominate a non-notable crime article for deletion (there are many more that I would've liked to have nominated, but I try not to clog up AfD). Replace a few words and it also applies to accidents, disasters, "incidents", etc. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed your view on a couple of "accident" AfDs in July using WP:RAPID as rationale, while admitting they were within the remit of NOTNEWS. My thinking was that if in a year's time nothing much had resulted from or been subsequently reported on the incidents, I'd likely go for delete in a follow up AfD. Brief particulars of this shooting are listed in List of mass shootings in the United States in 2022, though why such comprehensive listings of these shootings are being maintained is itself questionable. We're already up to 23 separate US mass shooting articles for 2023, which looks like a record year in terms of numbers. This one from 2022 being gang related, suggests little or no political impact, so a year later we no longer need a separate article, the brief note in the list covers the main aspects, but on balance it was acceptable to publish an article on this immediately after the incident. Rupples (talk) 00:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your reaction illustrates what I just said: The sustained coverage has been identified, yet it is brushed aside. If anyone else wants to support my opinion they are also welcome to it! gidonb (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gidonb, not to mention court proceedings will continue. ---Another Believer (Talk) 17:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
gidonb, you didn't answer either question, so I'll rephrase: what WP:SUSTAINED sources are you talking about? They aren't on this page, and they aren't in the article. The only ones here are local mentions of the fact that the event happened with no analysis or integration, nor mention of any WP:LASTING impact... or even lasting interest. In fact, the articles themselves explain why this event cannot pass WP:NEVENT (emphasis added in all): Despite last year’s violence, she wasn’t shocked to learn that it had happened. “There’s constant shootings. And it’s like, ‘Oh, there was one only two blocks from us. Oh, this is a carjacking.’” and “family and friends mention it,” he said, “but South Street is still packed every Thursday through Sunday.” and "It slowed down dramatically because the traffic slowed down, but as of now it's picking up to where it used to be," Maverick said. Sarah Cowell from the South Street Headhouse District told FOX 29 no businesses closed as a direct result of the South Street shooting, and 38 new business have opened since 2022. This is the poster child for a terrible crime that, sadly, is simply not notable. I would also still appreciate some sort of explanation of your WP:IDONTLIKEIT assertion. It seems the only people who are providing policy specific are the deletionists (a group in which it is extremely odd to find myself). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with you that the two sources produced to support SUSTAINED don't cut the mustard. Those two sources are local media reports so don't contribute to notability under WP:GEOSCOPE. For the article to be retained I'd want to see coverage outside Philadelphia. However, User:Another Believer may have a point on the court proceedings, which could feasibly be reported more widely. That's why I'm uncertain as to what's the best course of action at present and have refrained from !voting. Rupples (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm sorry to prolong this AFD but I see No Consensus, leaning Delete. It seems to all rest on WP:SUSTAINED here. Is a Redirect a possibility?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current !vote is 7:6 in favour of Keep. Since there is no consensus (to delete; this is a delete discussion) then surely the default is keep. WWGB (talk) 05:41, 22 September 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony DiNozzo[edit]

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

Although there is a Reception section, I don't think it warrants the character's notability. Many parts of the Reception section are listicles, which does not prove notability. The reviews may prove some kind of notability, but they seem to only mention him in passing. A quick Google search does not give much to prove the character's notability.

I am sending this to AfD because I may be wrong and there are independent, reliable sources that don't just talk about him in passing (see Ziva David as an example). If there is not, I would recommend a merge and/or redirect to List of NCIS characters#Anthony DiNozzo. Spinixster (chat!) 08:39, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and/or redirect to list of NCIS characters, no need for character to have his own page
Elttaruuu (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 September 5.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given DRV, giving it more time and eyes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:35, 22 September 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. (non-admin closure) NM 01:53, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkville University[edit]

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

WP:ORGCRIT. I can’t find any RS for this except some PR pieces. Some articles have a passing mention of the existence of the university but that’s it. NM 01:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I found one. Is that enough? NM 01:50, 22 September 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 Vasil Amashukeli#Dəniz kənarında gəzinti. Liz Read! Talk! 02:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seaside Walk[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. BangJan1999 01:32, 22 September 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! 02:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Award Winners for Best Picture, Director, Actor and Actress[edit]

List of Academy Award Winners for Best Picture, Director, Actor and Actress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no reason to exist. All the information it contains is hosted elsewhere on Wikipedia and it provides no new insight or information about it. It's just a reformatting of information from pages that do serve an actual purpose. KingEuronIIIGreyjoy (talk) 00:46, 22 September 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! 02:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Graham (singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician / producer. Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 22 September 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, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gromer Khan[edit]

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

Non-notable German musician/composer/artist. Natg 19 (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NBAND#5. This musician has dozens of recordings including four on New Earth Records which has been around for 30+ years and also features Terry Oldfield and Prem Joshua among others. New age is a niche style and New Earth Records is even more niche than something like Windham Hill, but they have a very long track record of releases.
I can see how this artist is marginal on notability, particularly given the state of the article, but it would be helpful if the nominator could indicate the specific rationale for saying it fails notability, particularly since this artist has a long career with many releases. Oblivy (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find RS or SIGCOV about him, though perhaps others are better at searching. Natg 19 (talk) 16:10, 22 September 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.
More