< September 07	September 09 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 06:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beshir Imanov[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. This person wasn't a general and a Hero of Socialist Labo, it is confirmed. Imanov was a colonel and a police chief (confirmed with notable sources) and hadn't any other remarkable positions and awards. There have been several discussions about wrong informations and questionable sources about this person in azwiki and as a result, this article has been deleted. This is the discussion for deletion in Azerbaijani Wikipedia Surə ^🗯 19:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Police, and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a promotional piece rife with outright falsehoods, written by one of his descendants who has an obvious WP:COI, who also happens to be the author of this article that these claims are sourced to. Many of the keep !voters cited sources that allowed him to clear GNG... I'm not sure where those sources are. The article was speedied on tr.wiki twice, and has now been deleted on az.wiki as well. The first AfD on az.wiki is quite informative about the sheer extent of the falsehoods here, including an examination of sources that reveals he has not received the Hero of Socialist Labour award. --GGT (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Storg Keep Please see the discussion page before posting. An article should not be deleted because of personal bias. You will answer for what you did in the Azerbaijan section - the article was restored, and you deliberately deleted the article - the candidate is meant. The information about the person is completely encyclopedic. You don't see the Associated Press source? See Azerbaijani sources. thenews.az, karabakhnews.com, encyclopedicity is obvious based on the number of all indexed publications. konkret.az pravda.az, modern.az, kanal17.org, The latest news from Israel - jerusalem daily journal Sources appear to be sufficient for WP:GNG. @Necrothesp, @Atchom, @Stifle There are those who confirm this in the previous discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.219.190.173 (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This IP is probably User:Elshad Iman (Elşad İman), who was blocked on several wikis for abusing multiple accounts and undisclosed paid-editing, as you can see here: SPI case and SUL. Now he started threatening wikipedians. NMW03 (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only thing on the article's talk page is a note that a COI editor contributed to making the article. This corroborates what GGT said above; in that light, I'm not clear why the IP says that's a reason for a strong keep. —C.Fred (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: When searching, it appears in other sources, another source, where is the failed here and what? A letter written to his family during the USSR. Archive document of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, reply letter received from Moscow. These are all 1st grade sources and evidence.

He is encyclopedic as the author of military textbooks.85.132.29.163 (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last two are primary sources rather than "1st grade". —C.Fred (talk) 12:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be SIGCOV in several secondary sources: e.g. here and here. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
is it ok if ref is press-release? 45.15.43.114 (talk) 12:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It certainly passes WP:GNG. I agree with @Ficaia that this meets WP:SIGCOV. Per the large number of good refs.--Jasulan.T ^{TT me} 11:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quantity of refs does not equal quality. Puffery and inflation of accomplishments. AP Press wire release that praises Lavrenty Beria and is written in an exaggerated tone is not a reliable source. Articles like the Redaksiya one are just inflating jubilee medal awards that all Soviet (para)military personnel received into something significant. Despite the promotion effort Imanov is no more notable than any other midlevel bureaucrat. Kges1901 (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A person is considered encyclopedic as the author of military textbooks. He played a role in historical events and sources are seems reliable. Look carefully on the Internet for information about this person, maybe there is an electronic encyclopedia about him. Also - we should not judge the personalities of our contemporaries and the past by the same criteria, that is, I mean that there may be a lack of sources, because the press of that time reflected events in newspapers, there were no websites at that time. The importance of the individual is valid according to the personalities of the #Past. Redaksiya (talk) 11:56, 1 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!} 23:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read multiple military textbooks and manuals. I never associated them with notability - or memorability.

Maybe the Soviets had better writers?

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 23:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at a browser translation of the Azeri deletion discussion cited above. Azeri must be hard for machines; my 2 favorite !votes were:

”Have you given a voice in favor of the bark?”
”Let it be wiped out: I consent with the hives.”

Much of the rest was less intelligible and I was unable to figure out the comments. Maybe somebody can get a better translation.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 00:37, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B., When reading the source here - Azerbaijani literature, it becomes clear that he also worked as a teacher.

I also read the posts on the discussion page for recovery. A reliable source like AzTV has a radio program about him, listen to the radio broadcast.

Significant participation in the creation of large reference publications, the preparation of textbooks for primary, secondary and higher schools, in demand outside the educational institution where the author worked. There are minimum requirements for WP:AUTHOR Jasulan.T ^{TT me} 05:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If he wrote other textbooks besides military textbooks, that’s a bit different.

In the West, military manuals are usually assigned to a person or committee to write. The assignment is usually more about who’s available than who’s an expert.

In the Soviet era, I’m guessing that anything significant, policy or tactics-wise, came out of some central bureau in Moscow, and wasn’t written by the local police.

These are guesses on my part.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 08:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A. B. It's worth noting that these statements carry an element of speculation, and the actual processes in place may exhibit some variations from the descriptions provided. In reality, the intricacies of such matters tend to be quite complex and multifaceted, making it challenging to make broad generalizations with certainty. I stand by my position, the article can be kept. Jasulan.T ^{TT me} 10:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said above, “these are guesses on my part”.

I haven’t had time to dig into the sources yet, so I haven’t expressed an opinion about deleting the article.

I was simply responding to the assertion that preparing military textbooks contributed to Imanov’s notability.

Show me the textbooks he wrote were somehow different from run-of-the-mill government textbooks and I’ll happily change my mind.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 13:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no proof that he actually wrote any textbooks, especially as the PR Newswire article that is copied in many of the sources describes the titles of medals differently from their actual names: Eminent among these accolades gleamed the "Sentinel of the Caucasus" medal in 1944, the "Triumphant Overlord of German Soil" medal in 1945, and the coveted "Supreme Servant" 1st-degree medal in 1961. These are mistranslations of the names of run of the mill Soviet medals awarded for participation or just having been in the military/state bureaucracy at a specific time given to hundreds of thousands of recipients. Kges1901 (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The names of the medals are shown correctly in the wikidata. 5.191.106.25 (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He worked as the first deputy in the Azerbaijani branch of the Ministry of State Security of the USSR. Shortly after Nikita Khrushchev came to power in 1953, he was removed from this post and appointed head of the Militia Department named after Lavrenty Beria. Medal "For the Defence of the Caucasus", Medal "For the Victory over Germany in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945", Medal "For Labour Valour" , Jubilee Medal "30 Years of the Soviet Army and Navy", Jubilee Medal "Twenty Years of Victory in the Great Patriotic War 1941–1945", Medal "For excellent service in the protection of public order", Medal "For Impeccable Service", 1st class - The owner of all these listed medals and a person holding a high post of state importance in the USSR, I consider an encyclopedist.--Mehdi Fayyazli (Talk) 10:02, 4 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!} 23:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of course, I rarely participate in discussions, but I happened to notice that this discussion has occurred for the second time. It seems that information obtained from primary sources provides a more detailed and objective description.--Erokhin (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. My BEFORE indicates this individual is a nothing special run of the mill Soviet police chief that pleased their superiors and had the Soviet bug for medal collecting. All the sources I see fail IS RS SIGCOV addressing the subject impartially, directly and indepth, and are just based primary or regurgitated primary puff. As for press coverage, you don't become a Soviet police chief without controlling the press per NKVD101, and biographies in Soviet era encyclopedias are just highly censored government entries for government officials. Nothing meets IS, RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 19:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO nd no significant coverage Worldiswide (talk) 06:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ficaia and Stifle It would be wrong to say that the person who worked as a doctor of technical sciences, author of textbooks and head of department of the USSR does not meet the encyclopedic criteria. Keep: Diverse and independent sources of information proves the encyclopedic nature of man. It provides the most complete and objective understanding, covering such important information as human life, education, professional activities and their impact on the environment. I finde a new sources 7news.az, icmal.az, shushapost.az, lobbi.az 5.191.138.252 (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can be Kept: Encyclopedias do not "force" the inclusion or exclusion of specific articles or individuals. The decision to include or exclude content in an encyclopedia is typically made by the editors or administrators based on established criteria and guidelines. These criteria aim to ensure that the content meets certain standards of notability, verifiability, neutrality, and overall relevance to the subject matter of the encyclopedia.
Editors and administrators carefully evaluate the content to maintain the integrity and quality of the encyclopedia. They may consider factors such as the subject's significance, coverage in reliable sources, and overall contribution to the field or topic being covered. The goal is to provide accurate, reliable, and comprehensive information for readers.

While encyclopedias strive to be objective and impartial, the final decision on article inclusion is subjective to some extent, as it relies on human judgment and interpretation of the established criteria. However, these decisions are generally made in the best interest of the encyclopedia and its readers, aiming to provide a valuable and informative resource. 5.191.113.161 (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The previous two 'keep' votes appear to come from the same IP range, and are the only edits by either IP. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:11, 16 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 and no indication further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 14:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ultan Conlon[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Ireland. UtherSRG (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:BASIC here's three sources from three very different locations in Ireland, each with SIGCOV [1][2][3] —siro χ o 05:05, 26 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!} 23:19, 1 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!} 23:21, 8 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 Draftify‎ which gets it out of mainspace and allows the creator to work on it. If there is tendentious editing happening, that can be handled outside this discussion as there's no indication further input is forthcoming. Star Mississippi 15:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

South East Junior B Hurling Championship[edit]

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

Non-notable hyper-regional amateur sports competition at one of the lowest grades of the sport. Moved from draft to main article space without issues highlighted in AfC submission being addressed. A WP:BEFORE search returns a small amount of routine local news/sports coverage of individual games in this regional amateur sports competition. But nothing that indicates that the competition itself has been the subject of significant coverage. Certainly to the extent that WP:SIGCOV or WP:NSPORTSEVENT would expect. (As an aside, the moving editor continues to create/move articles like this. Ignoring all peer feedback, AfC notes or input on user talk. Or the outcomes of very similar recent AfD discussions on similar topics. Continuing to create/promote half-baked and half-empty skeleton "articles" to the main article space when they are clearly not 'ready'). Guliolopez (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment HurLING560, who had moved this from draft space to article space, has moved it back to draft space. Might make sense to close/withdraw this, Guliolopez? Skynxnex (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When this happens, we move the article back to main space. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 3 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!} 22:31, 8 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!} 23:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dmytro Romanov[edit]

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

This article was actually created after WP:NSPORTS2022 but contains no significant coverage. My own searches in Ukrainian and English yield no evidence of WP:GNG and, in fact, only yield stats sites which merely confirm that he came on as a sub in one Ukrainian third tier match. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:13, 9 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. Star Mississippi 15:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Zaki[edit]

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

Despite having 2 caps, I was unable to find any significant coverage, so looks to fail WP:GNG and even WP:SPORTBASIC #5, the latter being the bare minimum requirement. Even searching in his native language ("محمد زکی") yielded no decent results about the Afghan footballer with this name. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Afghanistan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mentioned above, it doesn't support any specific source; and ought to have needed sources. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG per my BEFORE search. Jogurney (talk) 15:28, 14 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 Condor Trilogy#Plot. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Wumu[edit]

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

In my opinion, this does not meet the notability criteria for fictional elements (WP:NFICT). It's written as if this was a real treatise written by Yue Fei and I could see someone making a mistake easily. Kazamzam (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, China, and Hong Kong. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Condor Trilogy#Plot. I've never read any of those novels or heard of them or the author until today, but the contents of the article under discussion are all fictional plot elements, considerably longer and more detailed than the Plot subheading of the novels in which this fake book was invented and evidently plays something of a central role.
Conveniently, being an element of fiction, merging the contents of this article into Condor Trilogy means we don't have to source anything per MOS:PLOT. Folly Mox (talk) 22:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, and incidentally, since it's not that well sourced at the moment, I'll point out that Folly Mox's destination meets N, [4][5][6][7] —siro χ o 03:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:ATD. This isn't separately notable from the fiction, but can be summarized in a way that improves the main series article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:46, 11 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. There is a consensus here to Keep this article but clearly more discussion about the direction of the article should occur on the Talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rasputitsa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG.

Rasputitsa is the Russian name for mud season (according to this very article’s lead). This article should be merged into that one which covers the same subject and is titled according to WP:USEENGLISH.

Rasputitsa as distinct from mud season receives no significant coverage as the main subject of reliable sources. Mud season is a prominent topic in some works about logistics or war, and is sometimes mentioned by its Russian name in specific contexts (usually WWII in Ukraine, Belarus, and the western margin of European Russia). But the Russian name is not generally used in English, and when mentioned it appears in italics or quotation marks as an unnaturalized foreign term. Mud season has been mentioned in some recent news about Ukraine, where the Russian name has equal or less prominence to the Ukrainian translation bezdorizhzhia.[8][9] The Russian translation rasputitsa doesn’t have a distinct special meaning in English, and doesn’t appear in general English dictionaries.[10][11][12][13], not even the OED.[14] It does have a 23-word entry in A Dictionary of Weather.[15]

The article mud season has 5.2 kb of readable prose, and this one about 2.2 kb, so the largest possible merged length of 7.5 kb is still far short of a length of 45 kb plus that would justify two articles according to WP:SIZESPLIT.

Previous discussion:

Pinging previous participants: user:DavidWBrooks, user:KlausFoehl, user:Macktheknifeau, user:Olegwiki, user:Rheinguld. —Michael Z. 21:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some contributors and users are missing here!Taksen (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —Michael Z. 21:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, term appears in many works on the eastern front during the Second World War, but also on the Napoleonic, IWW and other wars; it refers to the particularly strong type of 'mud season' present in Russia. WP:USEENGLISH does not mean that we can only use 100% English names, but that when we have a choice of several versions we choose the one that is most popular in texts written in English. Rasputitsa is certainly such a one.

Besides, I don't know why you give as a reason for removal the fact that the Ukrainian term is more popular than the Russian term for mud season in Ukraine. Firstly, we are talking about mud season in Russia so I think this is natural, secondly, I am not convinced that this is the case actually. Marcelus (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there is no "particularly strong" mud in Russia - it is an excuse for losers. I assure you, mud in Poland is just as strong if you go off paved road. And God what a swamp Silicon Valley was until it was drained! And I am not even talking about Canada, Alaska, Norway... - Altenmann >talk 21:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A synonym appearing in works doesn’t mean it’s a separate subject. Can you cite sources where the word clearly refers to a different subject than mud season, however strong it be? Can you cite sources where the term is used exclusively and not mentioned in passing? Can you demonstrate significant coverage as per GNG?

It’s not about using the word. It’s about declaring that the word represents a distinct subject per our guidelines and creating an article for the mud seasons of supposedly higher strength levels that supposedly occur in supposed Russia.

The Ukrainian name is now being mentioned, not used, exactly the way the Russian name used to be mentioned regarding fighting in exactly the same region. Please be aware that much of the fighting “in Russia” during WWII, the Russian Civil War, WWI, and Napoleon’s invasion took place in Ukraine and Belarus. —Michael Z. 22:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

merge into "Mud season" There is close to zero novel content, expect for speculations that somehow mud season helped Russians to defeat enemies, as if Russian army was immune to mud. But, as Russian invasion of Ukraine demonstrated, mud is an enemy for any army; which is even in military handbooks now. - Altenmann >talk 21:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is no Wikipedia guideline that requires "regional variants" of an over-arching subject to be condensed/merged into a single article. For example, Fremantle Doctor and Southerly Buster are both terms for a strong wind, but there is no reason those two pages would have to be merged into Gale. Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Those aren’t merely terms meaning “a strong wind.” They aren’t just synonymous regionalisms. They are specific, named winds. The capitalization of these proper names attests to that.
  
  The common noun rasputitsa is just the Russian term for a general phenomenon that can occur in many places and at different times. —Michael Z. 04:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian army was not immune to the mud, it was just that the rasptutitsa particularly affects the offensive side, stopping the attack and allowing the defending side to reorganise its forces. Soviet troops faced the same problem during the counter-offensive. Marcelus (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the wrong forum for a content dispute. This quite clearly meets WP:GNG (beyond sources in the article we have quite a bit of in-depth news including for example [16][17][18]), doesn't fall afoul of WP:NOT or WP:V, given the way the articles are structured it doesn't violate WP:CFORK. I don't oppose an editorial decision to merge, but I don't see any policy reason to enforce a merge at AfD. Even the discussion here so far suggests this seems to be a content dispute and AfD discussions are not the place to resolve content disputes. —siro χ o 03:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: WP:SK Rule 3 "The nomination is completely erroneous". We went through this exact discussion about a merge a year ago and there was no consensus. This article clearly meets GNG and AfD is not the place to try and force through a merge just because the article has a Russian word as the title. There is also no wikipedia guideline that any article has to be of a particular size to justify being a stand alone article. If anyone is worried about the length of the article they can feel free to expand it, rather than simply nominate it for delete/merge. I would respectfully request to the OP to withdraw the nomination.Macktheknifeau (talk) 04:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (no merge): A quick google search shows that it is not only the Russion word for mud season, but is used also in English sources as well: Oxford Dictionaly of Weather, Rasputitsa as title of an English book, an article by RUSI (UK), Yahoo News and more. @Altenmann and Michael Z: I think claiming that the terms Rasputitsa and Mud Season are used interchangeably is WP:OR, this needs a proof and not the opposite. --Cyfal (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: as particularly ironically timed given that the term has enjoyed a massive uptick in recent usage in connection with the Ukraine war as a strategic factor effecting that conflict. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What you do here secretly without mentioning this on the talk page is against the rules.Taksen (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC) We do not need a privy council on Wikipedia.Taksen (talk) 11:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I followed the rules for proposing WP:AFD. Your casting WP:ASPERSIONS is against the rules. Please familiarize yourself with both guidelines. —Michael Z. 14:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be the other way around: Rasputitsa has ten times more visitors a month than Mud season (ca 11,000 and 1,100). Every one can see on the talk:Mud season Mzajac has a goal: to get rid off the Rasputitsa article. It was Cyfal who added after a few hours a link to this discussion; not Mzajac. It cannot be true that if one starts a discussion he doesn't have to mention this on the specific talk page. It causes confusion certainly not clarity.Taksen (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In 2007 Mzajac deleted a category: Russian loanwords, explaining Rasputitsa "is not a loan word in English". To my surprise it is included in the List of English words of Russian origin.

Already in April 2022 Mzajac suggested a merge; in June the template was deleted.Taksen (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the article on the Ukrainian Wikipedia is also curious. There are many bots and there is only one user who added most of the text. It is User:YuriyTer who calls himself a grammar nazi.Taksen (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources provided above demonstrate this is a sufficiently notable subtopic to warrant its own article. Furthermore, the separation between the two articles appears to be well-established consensus. OP has not provided sufficient evidence to overturn such consensus IMO. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 16:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is disagreement over what the scope of this subject includes, and some edit warring over entire paragraphs. See Talk:Rasputitsa#Scope of the article. Perhaps that should be resolved before this AFD is closed. —Michael Z. 17:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is part of the content dispute that should be resolved independently of AfD. —siro χ o 20:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no really any dispute, it's only @Mzajac creating artificial problem Marcelus (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus, please stop with the unfounded personal attacks. I started a discussion there trying to resolve edit warring that I was not involved in. —Michael Z. 21:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. A five second Google Book search indicates this is a standard English language term. - SimonP (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same test indicates that tovarish (see also tovarishch) is a standard English-language term. Significantly more so, as it appears in English dictionaries, and doesn’t need to be glossed in virtually every source where it’s mentioned. But that doesn’t indicate that it is an independent encyclopedic subject. —Michael Z. 14:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comrade is the more common English term for the subject. If sources used tovarish more than they did comrade it would be correct to have the article under that name. Rasputitsa is the standard word for this subject in English. - SimonP (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It can be kept; although can be better to paste more source in it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 18:48, 12 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of NewJeans live performances[edit]

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

This is just a list of performances by a group active for a year. I don't think we need to be cataloguing that, this isn't a fan site

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Events, Lists, and South Korea. Skynxnex (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems ok, bit too long to merge, well sourced Oaktree b (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:LISTPURP as informational, listing out an aspect of the performers' careers, with context. Also meets as navigational, note, specifically, that many of the entries are bluelinked entries and include links to NewJeans. If the list ever grows too large to be useful to encyclopedia readers, stricter criteria can be chosen to limit the list. —siro χ o 00:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well sourced list, not a policy based reason to delete and per Oaktree b and Siroxo. Lightoil (talk) 04:05, 14 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Lee (2023)[edit]

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

~~Per WP:N. No direct impacts to land and none forecasted for at least another week. ~ Hiking Hurricane _(contribs) 20:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Obviously notable with significant coverage in reliable sources. Google Hurricane Lee Category 5 and you will get numerous results.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Every Category 5 hurricane makes it on the news, but we don't have articles on all of them, only those that impact land. ~ Hiking Hurricane _(contribs) 20:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is not an argument for deletion or keeping. Every article needs to be independently assessed for notability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A standard tropical cyclone article has either one or two sections for preparations and impact. As far as I'm aware, there aren't any reliable secondary sources talking about those for Lee so far. The article should only exist in mainspace if/when Lee begins to have direct impacts on land and reliable sources start talking about it. ~ Hiking Hurricane _(contribs) 20:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what WP:GNG says, and it's already sending surf impacts to the East Coast. CNN, for instance mentions surf and rip currents. You're still trying to appeal to WP:OSE, and are failing miserably because it's not a valid debate strategy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rip currents and surf have not yet begun to affect the East Coast. A preparations and impact section still could not exist. Lee has not broken any meteorological records, nor caused direct impacts to land, and is not notable enough for an article. ~ Hiking Hurricane _(contribs) 20:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep claiming it's "not notable enough" but however much you repeat it, your argument will not be sustained based on what the notability guideline says, especially considering that the timeline for a deletion discussion is a week and it will have impacts by then. You have yet to cite any policy or guideline to support your position so your deletion rationale will likely be disregarded based on that unless you provide such support (it's very laughable how you pointed to WP:N and it does not support your rationale at all).--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You do have a point about the timeframe of an AfD being one week. I'll strike my nomination. ~ Hiking Hurricane _(contribs) 20:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HikingHurricane Did you withdraw this AfD? Because I can do it now, if you would like to. TheCorvetteZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am withdrawing the AfD. ~ Hiking Hurricane _(contribs) 21:05, 8 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 read the consensus of editors here that this article should be Kept. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kukaracha (film)[edit]

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

Prod contested, more sources added since Prod, but all of them are trivial. Still seeing no SIGCOV, zero passable sources, see source analysis. WP:GNG and WP:NFILM fail

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Literary Portal	N	Y	?	?	N	A short plot summary of the movie and a passing mention that it is faithful to the book. Literature database that feels more tertiary than secondary
The Current Digest of the Soviet Press	N	Y	Y	Y	N	A single sentence stating the story is "appealing"
Georgian Journal	N	Y	Y	Y	N	A listicle of "The best-looking Georgian actors of all time" passing mention of the actors being in the film
Obituary	N	N	N	Y	N	An obituary for an actress in the film, again a single passing mention of her being in the film
Los Angeles Times	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Certainly in depth of the actor it is a piece on, but again, a single, trivial mention of the film
Historical dictionary of Georgia	N	Y	Y	N	N	Trivial mentions in a tertiary source, passing mentions as acting credits
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

IceBergYYC (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Georgia (country). IceBergYYC (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All in all sources would tend to prove the film is notable. But also, and most of all, it received the Award for the best adaptation at the 1983 All-Union Film Festival. (See here for a source) So that the page meets the following requirement for notability of films: "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking". The film is also Siko Dolidze’s last film. See also this for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd classify "Best Adaptation" at a now defunct, borderline non-notable soviet-bloc film festival to be a major award. IceBergYYC (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am sure I would. And that festival is very notable! Please look it up. No further comment. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable per the All-Union Film Festival award. That notable festival was a big deal in the Soviet Union, a country of 200+ million.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 14:21, 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 19:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As an older film not in English language, not even using Latin or Cyrillic alphabet, this meets WP:NFO.3 by winning one of the most important film awards in the Soviet Union. The importance of the award can be established, eg by this Taylor & Francis book [19]. Apparently important enough that post-Soviet Union it's been replaced by 3: Kinotavr, Kinoshock, and Vivat, Kino Rossii. Note also that this film received the award prior to the establishment of the Nika Award. —siro χ o 05:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets major award test WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:43, 9 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. A Merger has been brought up but no specific target article/section provided and there has been no additional comments to this discussion in the past two weeks. Further discussion can occur on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Island Yacht Club Antarctica[edit]

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

A club of some 25 hobbyists without any actual achievements, and without notability from independent sources (the "Antarctic Sun" is the internal newspaper of the US Antarctic program, and this club is just an informal group on one of their bases). As the Antarctic Sun article says, there also is the "first and only" bikers club in Antarctica (though there are no bikes), and so on. As long as it doesn't get this kind of attention from reliable independent sources, it doesn't belong here, but all I can find are blogs, reports from someone from another yachting club, Facebook, Linkedin, ... Fram (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Antarctica. Fram (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Could be a brief subsection in the article about the US Antarctic program. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Antarctic Sun looks like an independent, reliable source after looking at our article. That said, I remain skeptical about an independent article for this yacht club. Also, they need a boat (maybe an iceboat? There’s a huge ice runway at McMurdo.)

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Life at these Antarctic stations is unusual and they have many quirky traditions. It would be useful to have an article about these that might include the yacht club. That’s beyond the scope and timeframe of this AfD but perhaps @Germenfer and/or WikiProject Antarctica might want to take this on.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 15:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about merging this with the McMurdo station article, and adding some more info on "Antarctic clubs" born in the McMurdo station? It could be a sub-section of its own. Germenfer (talk) 09:46, 28 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!} 16:49, 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 19:51, 8 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!} 23:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MedAccess[edit]

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

No reliable sources provided except for routine coverage, own website, primary sources etc. Promotinal tone and original research Mozzcircuit (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/keep: Article has now been edited to address promotional tone and provide more reliable sources. Please review and consider withdrawing the proposed deletion. Impact7102 (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to any sources that meet GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability?

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please consider the following sources as meeting GNG/NCORP criteria: independent and showing information on the company.

1: Jack, Andrew (2019-11-29). "Innovative finance schemes increase access to medicine". Financial Times. Retrieved 2023-09-04.

2: "An overview of market shaping in global health: Landscape, new developments, and gaps". Rethink Priorities. Retrieved 2023-09-08. Impact7102 (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Response The FT article relies entirely on information provided by the company or execs which is clear from the context/content of the article. I cannot find any indication of content that is in-depth about the company and is *clearly* attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Similarly, the second source contains a list of references which appear to attribute the information to company sources, which would also ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 11 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!} 19:39, 8 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. with the understanding that the scope of this article might shift to be about the tomb. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Khaki[edit]

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

Historical scholarship does not document, much less discuss, our subject except in reference to the location of his tomb. None of the references in this article are about our subject. The single reference cited in his biography section is self-published work. 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) 15:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Islam. -- Jaunpurzada (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: It took all of a minute to find just such a paper precisely locate the subject's tomb, and here is another paper, and another, discussing the shrine. More generally, there are quite sufficient Google Scholar hits in English alone to surmise that the subject is an important figure in certain religious circles. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Exactly, they discuss the shrine/location and not the personality who is buried there, which supports my AfD. Jaunpurzada (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. If you really think there is no other material, that would just mean the article should be re-titled and rescoped to be just about the tomb. Other material exists however. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources above provide sufficient coverage for at least the tomb and shrine, and I think it is sufficient for Khaki as well, or at least indicates the probability that there is enough coverage that will turn up. Even if a consensus develops that Khaki is not notable, the article can always be rescoped. The Night Watch (talk) 20:58, 1 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!} 19:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this needs a retitle about his tomb, that might be fine, but he definitely has a good amount of coverage as a figure. The time period deserves more recognition in terms of figures, and so a well-sourced figure like this deserves credit. PickleG13 (talk)

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. Astroturfing and drive-by comments aside, there is a general consensus that this is not a suitable subject for an article. There was some interest in a merge but not much consensus on what or where, but if that can be sorted out, let me know and I'll be happy to facilitate the merge. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tater Tot (cat)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Coverage fails WP:SUSTAINED, and the article fails WP:ONEEVENT. Just one internet fad subject of hundreds. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Internet, and Utah. Lavalizard101 (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tater Tot the disabled kitten is not merely a fad. The reach of this kitten is global, and has dominated social media, the internet, news, and has affected people's lives in many ways that random fads do not. People's lives are being changed. That is not a fad. CTR1874 (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What? Whose lives are being changed? It’s unfortunate that a disabled cat would die so young, but it’s a cat. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the quality of the argument for AFD purposes, the poster is likely referring to the fact that Tater Tot and his slogan "keep going out of spite" have become to some degree inspirational motivators for humans who are trying to persevere through life difficulties such as physical or mental ailments/ impairment and other challenging personal situations.TheBlinkster (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete good to see that people are as hyperbolic about kittens as ever. Quite literally the dictionary example of an Internet fad, not generally notable at all and honestly only has a bunch of articles about it because churnalism is what we're stuck with now. AryKun (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's so perfect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susannajh (talk • contribs) 12:19, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have a glut of articles during the short period of time when they were a popular meme, and essentially no coverage since then. As said by the nom, this indicates a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage that would indicate notability. I would also be fine if this were sent back to Draft, and then either restored or covered at List of Internet phenomena if there was ever later sources to provide evidence that there was true sustained coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a bad article. Agletarang (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a great article for the famous tater tot cat that has been seen by millions of people. I’m not sure why it’s even being considered for deletion. There are thousands of news sources covering tater tot.btwfrost (talk) 1:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC) — Btwfrost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep There are numerous articles covering various internet famous cats who more than fit criteria for coverage. This one is no different. To target a disabled kitten's who passed away so recently is profoundly ignorant considering Wikipedia pages excel at immortalizing figures who have made an impact on many people's lives.Gorokag (talk) 2:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Keep as it meets GNG and has worldwide coverage. I'll IAR and do OTHERTHINGS by pointing out the fact that various incidents like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carberry highway collision (2nd nomination) also fail WP:SUSTAINED but were kept on the grounds of GNG. Tater Tot's sticker has the same breadth of coverage. There's no reason to keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Kericho truck crash but not this. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bit late to the reply, but are you seriously arguing that an accident that killed 52 people is comparable to a disabled kitten that lived for one and a half months? I fully expected to see an accident that killed like 3 people when I clicked that link, but that is honestly a very bad comparison. AryKun (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: Fails SUSTAINED, ONEEVENT, NOTNEWS. This is an Internet fad that someone managed to make an article about. A merge into List of Internet phenomena, as suggested by Rorshacma, is also acceptable. But not a stand-alone article for something that lasted a handful of months and which is unlikely to receive any real coverage in the future. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete or Redirect and merge salvageable content to List of Internet phenomena. Unfortunately, while the story behind this can be emotional, it ultimately has not enough notability to stand as an article on Wikipedia. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/partial merge per AryKun. We really can't be having articles on anything that goes viral these days. People like cute animals but there should be sustained coverage beyond a brief burst of news for a stand-alone article on a cat. Few of these sources are actually original reporting, it's easy to repackage the same content. Maybe Cats and the Internet could include this, but there would just be so many of them. Reywas92^Talk 13:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created an article about "viral pet" that seems to have withstood so far: Eclipse (dog). But she had at least 5 years' sustained coverage. I don't see sustained coverage here. However WP:SUSTAINED mentions organizations and future events by name, and by inference living persons, none of which may pertain to this article. I'd like to hear more debate about that. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This doesn't meet SUSTAINED, or NOTNEWS, nor arguably ONEEVENT. But such "Internet-famous pets" do probably meet the WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE threshold for inclusion in a list. It's correct that "we really can't be having articles on anything that goes viral these days"; it's a never-ending and increasing amount of very short-lifecycle stuff. But almost-notable animals are probably of borderline encyclopedic interest enough to listify them in a general article on "Internet stuff", or even a more specific split-off article about such animals, if something like List of Internet phenomena gets too long. All the emoting in the keep comments above generally makes me lean even stronger toward merge, or even delete if came to that. This is not a venue for trying to guilt-shame other editors for not being as heartstring-pulled as you are about cutesy animals (and I'm probably in more cute cats Facebook groups that you are anyway. >;-) PS: List of individual cats is another potential merge target, and/or another source of entries to split off into a list of Internet cats or something, if we wanted to do that. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 00:38, 6 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!} 19:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT, if it applies to cats, would merely suggest changing the scope of the article to the notable event, not an outright deletion. Also, I don't think we can really evaluate WP:SUSTAINED after one month for something that was covered for multiple weeks. That said, I'd be fine with a merge to List of individual cats or Cats and the Internet. Otherwise, keep for at least a few more months to evaluate SUSTAINED. —siro χ o 06:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the issue is that it hasn't been long enough to establish if something is actually notable, wouldn't the ideal solution be to Draftify it for a couple months to see if additional coverage is forthcoming and restore it at that point, rather than Keeping it until then? Rorshacma (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay with draftifying it to see if more coverage appears. SilverTiger12 (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally ok with that idea. But in hopes of avoiding backdoor deletion, is there someone interested in maintaining the draft? —siro χ o 20:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as above. Leo1pard (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of reliable sourcing here. Pages for animals are more complicated. PickleG13 (talk) 09:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A search for Internet cat turns up at least 15 cats on the first page that nobody knows or cares about. If we're going to make articles about every cat that goes viral on TikTok and then gets 10 articles written about it because it's easy clickbait, we're going to be making a lot of terrible articles. AryKun (talk) 13:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AryKun But clickbait "if it bleeds it leads" stuff is totally okay, right? EvergreenFir (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the accident is non-notable, nominate it for deletion. In any case, we don't have articles on every minor accident that kills 10 people somewhere, just the larger ones. If this was a cat with actual notability like Grumpy Cat, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As it stands, it's a kitten with twisted legs that died in 1.5 months and did absolutely nothing; if we're making an article on this, we should make one on every random animal that has a viral Reddit post and a couple churnalistic articles spawned from that. AryKun (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, we're seriously going to treat a couple thousand members in a Facebook group and a similar number of Instagram and TikTok posts as a serious measure of impact? I will guarantee there are more posts than that about "fanart"^porn of at least twenty-five individual Pokémon, and we are definitely not making articles on that. AryKun (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did nominate them for deletion... but whatever. Different standards I guess. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've found that it's more likely for a change to go through if you wait awhile to let the furor die down. Not just deletions, too- there was a nastily contentious move discussion on a paleo article over moving to the scientific name over a news-given nickname. The first move discussion was bogged down with randos supporting the nickname, but the second a few months later only attracted a handful of paleo regulars.

Personally, I was considering bringing this article to AfD in a few months myself when the fad was over. I suspect if you waited a year and brought those accidents to AfD, there'd be much less participation, especially if there was a lack of coverage after the initial outburst however apparently sustained it was. SilverTiger12 (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the above speaks to why I went with merge. Lots of topics are within the "not indiscriminate" scope but fail NOTNEWS, etc., and maintaining a summary of them in topical lists is much easier than having separate articles on them. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“we should make one on every random animal that has a viral Reddit post and a couple churnalistic articles spawned from that.” Heh, was that a Jorts_(cat) reference? Justanotherguy54 (talk) 06:02, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, my impression is that you didn't follow Tater Tot's coverage or the interest taken in him very closely. You seem to have decided on your own that this is just a Facebook fad and not notable instead of actually taking into account the volume of news coverage, the people making art or murals based on the cat's life, etc. I am also not sure what you mean by the cat not "doing anything" - cats whether it's Tater Tot, Pot Roast, or Grumpy Cat generally do not "do anything" unless they are animal actors appearing in movies, or play a part in some dramatic news event like Harambe the Gorilla. Notability of an Internet celebrity animal is more likely to come from sustained exposure, and it's hard to argue that Tater is not getting sustained exposure, especially when you haven't given it enough time to see if the exposure persists over time or gives rise to new initiatives, new charities, other lasting effects. TheBlinkster (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the concept of "sustained exposure" either. As sad as it is, the cat passed away. All news articles about him (I have just checked) are a month old. There's no active reports (what is there to report about?) on him, and the only "exposure" is a Facebook group which is only posting photos of *other cats* for obvious reasons. Ladysif (talk) 13:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Speaking as someone who takes a general interest in celebrity cats and other celebrity animals, the global reach of Tater Tot's story, which appeared in a very large number of news outlets around the world and helped to bring attention to the plight of disabled or "special needs" foster animals, was unusual and definitely meets the notability criteria. Tater Tot is also continuing to have an impact after his death by promoting both the cause of disabled animals and general perseverance in the face of difficulties. If other "Internet celebrity cats" such as Pot Roast (cat) can have a Wiki article, then Tater Tot certainly qualifies also. At absolute minimum, the page should be kept for now and then if necessary revisited in several months or even a couple years, to see if there is some deletion criteria based on lack of lasting impact. Right now it appears the tide is going in the other direction and the impact on popular culture is actually increasing with time. TheBlinkster (talk) 12:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
for that matter, who is/was Pot Roast? I've never heard of them, but every time I turn around, I see Tater Tot. So... idk. Jane Heyer (talk) 05:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Almost every cat on the "cats of the internet" and "list of individual cats" page has a link to a seperate page about the cat, why is it any different for Tater Tot? I see people saying "but he only lived a month" as a way to write off him being a "fad" but he surely would have been a much larger piece of internet culture had he lived longer because he already had a GIGANTIC impact. His story has helped spotlight several other disabled kittens, most especially in the 57 thousand member group "tater tot and his spudbuds" which has helped multiple shelters get funding for their animals to be able to get medical care so he it still having an impact on the world. 2600:4041:1CA:4F00:5182:CF61:45FE:3093 (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cant "edit to add" but if I could I would mention that if it absolutely HAS to be deleted it should be merged into "cats of the internet" because of the huge amount of news coverage. The amount of people showing out for this discussion page alone should make it notable enough for at the very very least an entry to cats of the internet 2600:4041:1CA:4F00:5182:CF61:45FE:3093 (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t delete this. This legacy is still on going and the help and good he has done for many resecues and other stray cats and kittens is on going. It’s the tater tot effect. Keep going out of spite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.17.181 (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a lot of random IPs popping up at the talk page of this afd today. I'm guessing some off-wiki canvassing has gone on? Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda. There's some discussion of it on a private Facebook group. Daxsymbiote (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Facebook group on at least two occasions now has attempted (or attempted to plan) edit wars on his page so it shouldn't really be surprising.Ladysif (talk)

Keep per TheBlinkster: there is enough SIGCOV to justify the article being kept. There could be more coverage of this cat. -- Wesoree ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think Tater Tot would be best having an entry on the Cats and the Internet page. I understand that he made an impact, but I don't think it's appropriate to have an article for every kitten that goes viral. I've fostered kittens and I understand the impact that Tater Tot has had on some people and the visibility for disabled animal welfare. Considering the impact but also the short span of it, I think the merge is best. I do think some of the supporters of the page coming from Facebook need to be more respectful of Wikipedia and it's volunteers. This is not a personal attack on Tater Tot or disabled kittens or animal welfare. The people who are for deletion or merge are people who are just trying to keep Wikipedia running smoothly. If you don't have anything nice or constructive to say, please stop brigading. comment added by Daxsymbiote (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand how this could be looked at as simply a passing cat meme but a look at the sources indicates Tater Tot as a uniquely noteworthy cat. Kickysam49 (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pleas do not delete the Tater Tot page. If has helped so many countless Babis get the card they need. And we need Tator Tot desperately — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:284:8C71:B83E:A6A0:3D2E:4970 (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC) • contribs) 15:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tater Tot is more than just some internet fad. He has created a movement where people come together in a community online to help rescues and shelters, especially in a time they need it the most. This community focuses on helping disabled animals the most. After the pandemic, so many people gave up their pets they got during the pandemic and it has overwhelmed so much. The Tot has brought people together to take care of these creatures humans have stuck in a bad situation. Laulaugh
Keep or Merge as Tater Tot the kitten may have been an internet fad, but there could possibly be more coverage of him. More importantly, Tater Tot the kitten brought the rescue Kitty CrusAIDe to the light and if there will not be more news of Tater Tot specifically, perhaps there will be more of the rescue. If this Wikipedia page doesn't meet guidelines, perhaps Tater Tot has a place on the Cats and the Internet page as Daxsymbiote said, or maybe a Wikipedia page discussing the rescue, Tater Tot and other popular animals from Kitty CrusAIDe, the owner, and more so Wikipedia does not grow overwhelmed with more submissions as this goes on. Tater Tot was more than an internet fad, however his Wikipedia page lacks most of his information about him, his story, the rescue, Ash, or anything at the moment; I recommend making a page for Kitty CrusAIDe and merging Tater Tot there or to the Cats and the Internet page as suggested above. --Slickster.x (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to create an article on Kitty CrusAIDe yourself if you want, Wikipedia is user-generated. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 06:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge As much as I love cats, the only reason why other internet cats have Wikipedia pages is because they have (or had) active presences - anyone can Google Tater Tot and find a plethora of news articles about him, but the fact of the matter is that he was a trend. His owner does not meet WP:NOTE standards either. As you can see above there are a number of contributions here from IP addresses that are not from people who understand how Wikipedia works. I see no issue with merging the article. Ladysif (talk)

This article must be kept alive. It is important for the future of feline care, not just the love of Tater Tot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.252.141.20 (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Do not delete tater tot’s page. With all the nasty and ugly in the world, do you want to delete some thing that’s positive and cute? Tater tot’s page has brought unity to the rescue community and John attention to the plate of special-needs cats, all around the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.7.6 (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT TO CLOSER: Without commenting on their merit, there are more !votes posted to the talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tator tot cat is 100% a thing that a lot of people know about please keep this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.235.200.117 (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, does not even achieves WP:SUSTAINED, WP:ONEEVENT, and notability, and here is WP:NOTNEWS. There could be thousands of kittens that die from random causes everyday and we aren't writing an entry for every one of them. It's very likely that once the "fire" of social media virality extinguishes itself, it will be forgotten, but we are left with another useless entry in Wikipedia (see what Wikipedia i‼ for). The argument about "the reach of a random kitten being global" is not sustained, because I didn't even know about of the existence of it until now in Wikipedia, and the acknoledgement of its existence was geographically limited to the region where this kitten lived, or at most the US. Suggested alternative: transfer to WikiNews. --Onwa (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tater Tot was actually covered extensively, by major news stations throughout the US and internationally, as shown by Google news search, even though you or other individuals might not have seen the coverage. It was not a regional story or even a US only story. Search I did just now brought up articles from Business Insider, Sportskeeda, Hindustan Times, Daily Express, Fox News, Newsweek, Daily Mail, Sacramento Bee, and a number of television networks.TheBlinkster (talk) 19:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if people are actually reading these NOT essays they are throwing around. For instance the full title of WP:ONEEVENT is "People notable for only one event" (emphasis mine) and has a three-prong test that fails. Similarly WP:NOTNEWS has four sub-points, Original reporting (does not apply); News reports giving examples of routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities (does not apply); Who's who (does not apply); Celebrity gossip and diary (might apply, except it specifically relates to human beings, and furthermore specifically relates to life trivia and not to the entirety of a subject). Something for the closer to consider. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.212.143 (talk) 18:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As Bri notes, there are 45 comments on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tater Tot (cat). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-off internet ephemera, with a heaping gob of animal-centric inspiration porn. Zaathras (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the multitude of overdramatic comments on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tater Tot (cat) and here, I have to agree on that inspiration porn bit. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting on the the comments on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Tater Tot (cat), a majority seem to be made by IP editors with few or no other edits outside this topic which to me would seem to suggest off wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry like others have said. Likely along with normal people who came here out of their own whim though are pretty emotional and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justanotherguy54 (talk • contribs) 03:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on, most of the IP editors and some accounts who’ve made comments on this page seem to be SPAs too. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into something similar to list of Internet Phenomena or celebrity cats. Agree with AryKun, ReyWas92, Ladysif, Candlish and most of the Delete & Merge comments. This article is based on a one-off Internet phenomena/fad of a cute disabled kitten who died and is solely famous for a one-off event, short term churnalism based on that event, and social media posts(such as the ones in the Facebook group a few dozen IP editors came from). I like cats and animals but if every cat or animal that’s gone viral(even with RSes) for just one small event/fad were to be made into a Wiki article, there’d be hundreds of articles. The intersection between cats and culture and the internet is already well established and touched upon in two articles, Cats_and_the_Internet, Cultural_depictions_of_cats the former which could be merged to. This article does not warrant enough notability to be it’s own article. Also, based off reading this discussion I think that articles like Jorts_(cat) and Pot_Roast_(cat) based on largely non-notable one-off fads should be merged or deleted along with this one. Articles like Grumpy cat satisfy notability due to sustained coverage and interest for a long bit(similar to Doge) and impact on internet culture and memes; Tater tot does not. Alternatively, this could be drafted for a while like Rorshacma said. Also, you IP editors from Facebook and the like should calm down. This discussion and proposal is not a personal attack on Tater Tot, he still has a legacy and impact outside this wiki page. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be good if posters could focus more on the AFD arguments and less on personal criticism of/ comments about those who do not appear to be regular Wikipedia editors but chose to comment here or on a talk page anyway, probably because they're emotionally invested in the topic. People who do not regularly edit here, often because the technical aspects and processes involved (including this AFD process) are difficult for them to understand, nevertheless often still use Wiki and even contribute money to keep it operating. I'm sure the closer of this AFD will weight comments appropriately taking into account comment quality, context, user experience and all that. Meanwhile, please be cognizant of WP:BITE.TheBlinkster (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Advising newcomers and SPAs is not a personal attack or biting. I commented on them because they are so prominent on this page and on the talk page, and they could provide some good arguments regarding this AfD and wiki guidelines like notability, but my opinion is that most have not done that so far. I know some people are understandably quite emotionally invested in this topic(especially those from a facebook group about tater tot), but telling them to calm down so they can focus enough to provide some good discussion and collaboration on this proposal is not an attack. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 21:28, 16 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. ✗plicit 05:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess Altburg of Oldenburg[edit]

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

Another genealogical entry. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database, and being related to notable individuals does not make you notable. All we have to say about her is who her parents, husband, and children were. Again, a merely genealogical entry. Surtsicna (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Surtsicna (talk) 18:48, 1 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!} 19:28, 8 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. (non-admin closure) Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bibb County School District vs. Wickman[edit]

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

Hoax article that is word-for-word identical in places with the Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe article mentioned in body. Discussed on the WikiProject Law talk page and was recommended to submit for AfD. Kazamzam (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Alabama. Kazamzam (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence anywhere (Google, Google Scholar, Google Books, Newspapers.com, Internet Archive, etc.) that any such case existed, and (as discussed at WT:LAW) it appears that the creator just copy-pasted the then-extant version of another article and changed the details. Recent state supreme court cases involving the First Amendment don't just disappear: at minimum they'd be available through Justia, case.law, or one of the many other online caselaw repositories. There's just nothing here, so I'm confident it's a hoax. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it for G3, seems like a full AfD is unnecessary? Literally only 6 G hits for "bibb county"+"wickman"+"school prayer", all wiki mirrors. JoelleJay (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that it might be deleted by an admin who's forgotten that G3 only applies to cases where the deception is so obvious as to constitute pure vandalism. I.e., that if one has to go and look it up, it can't be that blatant? Ooh! SN54129 16:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire, just to clarify, as I forgot to actually leave a !vote... I don't actually disagree that this should be speedied, as it's clearly such transparent bullshit that it needs to be expunged exterminated eradicated extinguished eliminated and erased already. But it should be an WP:IAR speedy—it's literally the kind of thing IAR was made for—and not one that is only ambiguously defensible. Cheers, SN54129 17:03, 9 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. My bad, you guys. (non-admin closure) SWinxy (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Carnegie libraries in Philadelphia[edit]

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

Fails WP:NLIST. Should be merged with List of Carnegie libraries in Pennsylvania. SWinxy (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Pennsylvania. SWinxy (talk) 18:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems clear enough I would have just merged myself. The Philadelphia libraries are not so distinct they can't be included in the main sortable table. Reywas92^Talk 19:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question: SWinxy, can you elaborate on how this fails our list guideline? Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, AB. I don't think it passes NLIST because I haven't found any sources discussing Carnegie libraries in Philly. SWinxy (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search for "Andrew Carnegie"+philadelpia+library turned up multiple useful references. Here's a sample:
- The City of Philadelphia has proposed creating a "Carnegie Library Thematic Historic District"[20].
- The Encyclopedia of Greater Philadelphia has an article about the libraries.[21]
- The National Park Service has an article.[22]
- PhillyHistory.org publishes a a so-called "blog" of history articles by professional historians; this includes an article about Carnegie and the Philadelphia libraries.[23]
  - This is not a "blog" in the sense of self-published opinions; reliability-wise, it's like the news blogs some news outlets have.
- The library system has a long history article.[24]

There's more out there; this is a start.

I'll note that the sources all indicate the Philadelphia libraries are a special group. We lose that if we merge this list into the state-wide list.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 20:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per A.B. Basically, I have no problem with a merger, which can be discussed on the talk page and enacted if consensus forms there, but no stomach for forcing a merger through the AfD process--there's simply not a compelling enough reason to brute force this. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should I withdraw the nom and do a RM? I completely forgot about that. SWinxy (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AFD is for deleting articles, not for merge discussions, so it would be best to do that. Dream Focus 20:37, 10 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. ✗plicit 23:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fahad Ahmed (cricketer)[edit]

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

This is my fifth AFD from this user. As like the past ones, the subject of this article lacks in-depth coverage as well. Vehemently fails all the notability criteria. X (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Bangladesh. X (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Fails WP:GNG, and given there isn't a suitable list to redirect to here per WP:ATD, delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:59, 9 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. Not much support for draftification, but I would provide a userspace copy to someone who commits to working on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Humayan Ahmed[edit]

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

This is my 4th AFD of this user's articles. The subject of this article hasn't played for a big team and does not have any in-depth coverage at all. All the coverage (in English at least) that exists on the internet is statistical or passing mentions. Fails to meet GNG or every other criteria. It's baffling how these pages have been live for years. X (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Fails WP:GNG, and given there isn't a suitable list to redirect to here per WP:ATD, delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that this is the fourth AFD backs up the idea that this page has established validity again and again. I don't think articles should be deleted without widespread consensus. PickleG13 (talk)
@PickleG13, this is not the 4th AFD of this page. I said this is was my 4th article nomination for deletion of the user who created that page. X (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @PickleG13: (edit conflict) Can you elaborate? I don't understand your argument that "this page has established validity again and again". The four deletion discussions involve four different cricketers. I don't follow sports bios very closely, but my sense is that Lugnuts created a lot of bios that may have met the notability criteria at the time (or at least common practice), but since then notability criteria have become stricter. Now many that are little more than stats stubs are being nominated for deletion and generally are being deleted. If that impression is correct, then it suggests there is widespread consensus to delete articles like this. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Hi @Worldbruce and @Xkalponik! My mistake. I misread what X had written and believed this was just a repeatedly flagged article. Yes, it does appear that notability criteria has become stricter. I would now recommend Moving to Draftspace. PickleG13 (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete dearth of sources. I don't really see the point in draftifying, the chances that the current contents would be of any help for a new article near null, let alone within 6 months. And I wouldn't really be too surprised at the age, Xkalponik, there are a lot of these articles, I doubt you'd get through an appreciable percentage even if you went through them every waking hour for years, that pretty much sets the lower bound on age. PROD would probably be fine for most of them. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:05, 16 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. Star Mississippi 01:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Athyra[edit]

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

might not be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. Via Ebsco search, there's a paragraph of plot summary and half a paragraph of analysis specific to that novel by C. K. Breckenridge in Critical Survey of Science Fiction & Fantasy Literature (3rd edn), 3/1/2017, p5-7. The series is very popular, so I'd be surprised if there were not offline reviews of all the individual novels. ~~At very least it is a viable redirect to the article on the series.~~ ETA: Detailed online review by Jo Walton at Tor.com [25]; another offline by Carolyn Cushman (1993) in Locus, #386 March 1993; another online at SFReviews.net [26]. Enough for Keep with the supposition that more will probably exist offline. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per criterion #3. might not be notable is not a proper deletion rationale; if the nominator is not themself convinced that something is non-notable after reasonable investigation per WP:BEFORE, then there is no reason for deletion articulated. Jclemens (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People who like fantasy novels know much better and much more quickly and easily than me whether it is notable or not - I just brought it to their attention. Many articles which have been tagged unsourced for that many years are not notable, and if such a draft article had been submitted this decade it would have been immediately rejected. Thanks to @Espresso Addict everyone now knows it is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fantasy fan at all, but the series is extremely well known. For this kind of thing, if you have Wikipedia Library access it is always worth dropping the title/author in, and seeing what comes out. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:04, 9 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. ✗plicit 23:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Teatar.hr Award[edit]

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

Big oof on WP:GNG. This article relies on only one reliable source, and unfortunately, I was unable to find any more. In addition, the article only lists the nominees and the winners. JTZegers (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of what this award would be called in the native language, nothing turns up in English. There are no sources found... Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Awards, and Croatia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. No indication of notability. The only ref seems to be from the award grantor itself, so no independent coverage at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Submitter was blocked a few years back for submitting fake articles. Presumably another hoax. DS (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it’s not - that scandal was a thing of the past. JTZegers (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nom. These awards are not notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry. TH1980 (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this should be deleted, unless by adding a valid source(s) to support it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 18:53, 12 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stonetoss[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Duplicate of previously deleted article; fails WP:GNG and doesn't satisfy any listed item for WP:NARTIST. (For reference, here is the previous deletion dicussion[27]). The article subject is an anonymous twitter artist. As noted in the previous deletion discussion and in WP:BEFORE, the most substantive citations are the same articles from the The Daily Dot [28][29] referencing reddit and twitter posts. Per WP:RSP and previous deletion discussion, The Daily Dot is of dubious credibility. Of the other sources that might satisfy WP:SIGCOV, is a Bitcoin.com article[30] heavily referencing the subject's twitter account (and a similar article[31] seemingly written by a non-English speaker or A.I.). The remaining sources give passing mention to the subject and are also exclusively social media focused. GoggleGoose (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics and Internet. GoggleGoose (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No more notable than last time; only sourcing that I find is is Know Your Meme. Delete for lack of sourcing, not at GNG. What's given in the article talks briefly about Mr or Mrs Stonetoss, nothing I'd call extensive. Oaktree b (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gizmodo is a slide show, so only briefly mentioning the individual. Rest are trivial coverage in non-RS regardless. Oaktree b (talk) 18:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sadly this nazi has a whole paragraph dedicated to them in this journal entry titled DIY Cruelty: The Global Political Micro-Practices of Hateful Memes

Wrythemann (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Observed that during WP:BEFORE, but didn't think a three sentence blurb satisfies for notability. GoggleGoose (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ah, just noticed this account is a couple days old, perhaps familiarizing with WP:SIGCOV would be helpful GoggleGoose (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Since the first time the article was deleted, the only update is the article subject had a cancelled NFT sale. Even per WP:BLP1E, a cancelled art sale itself isn't noteworthy. Fractured Logic (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. non-notable internet personality Antilock (talk) 16:33, 14 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. While consensus is not unanimous here, there is a substantial consensus that this topic is too broad to be a useful list. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of hobbies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This list is unencyclopedic and incredibly ambiguous in its inclusion criteria. The fact that participatory democracy, giving advice, sociology, dairy farming, and anime (all unsourced) co-exist on a list with hundreds of entries should be evidence enough of this point. This page either needs wholesale deletion (as was done in 2009) or major restructuring with clearly-defined and verifiable criteria -- something that is probably impossible given the open-ended nature. It could possibly be reduced down to List of collection hobbies since most of the other entries will be covered by other lists, like List of sports.--MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 August 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:15, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a list which is so subjective that it could include almost every human activity determined by an individual editor. We don't need this kind of indescriminate listicle. JMWt (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list like this just leads itself to any kind of interpretation, which is not a good thing. Plus, as always, Wikipedia is not a directory. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:47, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and require inline citations for every entry.
1. This meets WP:NLIST readily as hobbies are very frequently discussed in-depth as a group in reliable sources. (eg. here are some books dedicated to the topic [32][33][34][35]...).
2. It also fulfills WP:LISTPURP doubly.
  1. It's an informational list grouped by theme.
  2. It's also a navigational list as an index of hobbies on Wikipedia.
3. Given that it is already split into sections, it comfortably meets WP:SALAT. This also means it could be easily split into a WP:List of lists including such lists as the nom's suggestion of List of collection hobbies.

The only problem highlighted this list is that there may be subjective opinion in it due to the lack of citations on some entries. We can readily resolve that by requiring inline citations for each entry. —siro χ o 16:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, you are saying that the list is fine if we can find a single reference for each item in the list which describes how an someone treats each specific activity as a hobby? You realise that's probably absolutely everything and that it will result in a page with hundreds of references, right? JMWt (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, that's not what I'm saying, no. Requiring inline citations to reliable sources is a way to improve this list incrementally, right now. If the criteria is still too wide, we can require RS with SIGCOV of each entry as a hobby, multiple RS, etc. There's lots of approaches to improving this list, and I've suggested one that immediately addresses the core of the current issue raised. —siro χ o 19:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But that will definitely result in a page with hundreds of references. -- asilvering (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what's exactly the problem with hundreds of references...? The Blue Rider

23:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of the page? Who is going to a page to discover whether any particular activity is considered (by an en.wiki editor) to be a hobby? The page could contain almost unlimited entries long with an associated thousand references - for no real gain or value. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JMWt: a lot of people would, myself included; that's why I stumbled upon it. The article has +100k views just from the last 30 days, it's clearly an useful list. I suppose it's mainly used to look for new hobbies to pickup. The Blue Rider

12:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a directory; it doesn't matter if 100k+ people view it in the past month if the page itself isn't encyclopedic. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 13:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The views do matter to demonstrante utility of the page. None of WP:DIRECTORY's clauses fall into this; hobbies are an wildly discussed topic by many reliable sources. An article in a bad state doesn't merit a deletion (WP:DINC).The Blue Rider

14:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is a simple listin[g] without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. It's just a jumble of verbs and activities, most of which are unsourced. I would be fine with cutting off anything without a reliable source but even then, most sources as to what a "hobby" is are directories of hobbies. Utility isn't a goal of Wikipedia -- a hypothetical List of 20 best vegan spots in Portland, Oregon might get significant views, but it's not a page that fits with our encyclopedic goals. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 05:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a lot of sources might be mere lists, but something as big as hobbies is always going to have reliable sources. Google any hobby and add «hobby» in front of it and you're most surely going to find an article specifically talking about the benefits, why its a good hobby, etc. Take these as examples:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] The Blue Rider

09:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of these are really reliable; they don't focus on the activities' status as a hobby. They just offhandedly call them hobbies. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 19:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how WP:CONTEXTMATTERS applies here, the hobby is being actively discussed in the article. Obviously you won't get a full-blown scholarly article/book about the activity status of each hobby, but you don't need to have the WP:BESTSOURCE either. Nevertheless, perhaps these would satisfy you better:^[7]^[8]^[9] The Blue Rider

19:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please for the love of God put those references in a container. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 03:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo. The Blue Rider 23:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep and require scrupulous citation, as above. I don't actually think this will require hundreds of references, as I do think it will be possible to find individual references covering dozens of items at a time. BD2412 T 00:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT. While yes it does satisfy NLIST, it's just far too broad to be manageable. The majority(?) of human activities can be hobbies. Under educational hobbies, you could place every field of knowledge. All but the most specialized sports can be hobbies (I doubt there are any hobbyist cliff divers.), and so on and so on. Hobby categorizes them by general type, and that is all that is practical. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As for the OP's suggestion of List of collection hobbies, we already have List of collectables, which covers the same area. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: I don't see how the breadth is any greater than that of Lists of occupations. BD2412 T 03:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
List of occupations is a list of lists; and many of said lists have the same problems I identified with List of hobbies (also, see WP:WHATABOUT). MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 06:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the number of leisure activities is significantly greater than that of occupations. In fact, many occupations can be hobbies; examples from the list include tanning (leather), being a blacksmith, woodworking, mechanics (though I doubt the person who added that to the list meant the area of physics). Practically every human activity is pleasurable to someone. (I draw the line at Wikipedia editing, though; that's not a hobby, it's a disease or obsession.) All toys (Rubik's Cube), games (poker), fads (hula hooping), social activities (Model United Nations?), etc. qualify, based on how this list is set up. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Asilvering: and @Liz: MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 06:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a perfectly good navigational list. Reading it gives an idea of the realms of human interest. And fourth nomination? Once something is kept two times then any further nomination is above and beyond reasoning, a "fire at the target until someone hits it" type of deletion attempt. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"fire at the target until someone hits it" type of deletion attempt. This is further reinforced by the nominator reopening the AfD and pinging two of their friends. The Blue Rider 10:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully every Wikipedian is a friend of every other Wikipedian. They are a fairly rare breed, requiring care and feeding. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged them (including one admin!) because they asked me to re-open the AfD according to policy (one cannot withdraw a deletion nomination if there are delete votes, a policy I was not aware of.) I am the one who closed the AfD in the first place, after all, and it's not like someone else closed it and I re-opened it because I wasn't satisfied. Assume good faith and refrain from making accusations against other editors.

In any case, it has been deleted in the past and was re-made. The last nomination was over a decade ago. Also, Wikipedia is not a directory, and being a "perfectly good navigational list" isn't meaningful here. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 14:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blue Rider If you need the context for the ping, it's here: [36]. -- asilvering (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The first nomination was a delete, and that was back in 2009 when people tended to be a lot more permissive of this stuff. The second nom was a fast withdrawal without much input. The third nom should have been closed as "no consensus" rather than a "keep". Just because garbage slips through the cracks doesn't mean you can't try to clean it up until it's finally gone. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No bias here I see. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bias would imply that we have some other reason for thinking this page is irredeemable. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 16:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Come on - the last AfD was a decade ago. This is hardly fair to the nom and delete voters. -- asilvering (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke it from orbit (it's the only way to be sure). I find the pleas of "valid navigational list" wholly inadequate. As has been pointed out, practically any activity a human being can perform can be on this list. Requiring a source that explicitly calls something a hobby isn't going to cut it here, as we're even into WP:SKYISBLUE territory. One hobby of mine is ROM hacking. I can't find any specific RS that call it a hobby, but it undoubtedly is one. A quick googlin' finds plenty of other people who say so too, even if we can't get a proper source for it. Exclusion of this would be inappropriate, yet it's just the tip of a giant iceberg, rendering this list so broad as to be useless, per WP:SALAT. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A classic WP:IDONTLIKEIT (if my hobby isn't included then other shouldn't be). Will check out ROM hacking, have not heard of it, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk)
A completely unhelpful mischaracterization of my argument...I could just as easily call yours a classic WP:ILIKEIT. Thank you, drive through. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, come on, this article is viewed by an average of 3,300 people a day, sometimes many more. WP:COMMONSENSE should apply to such a number, especially if the page serves such a wide navigational purpose (the purpose of most lists). It does need some alphabetical fixes, but aside from that nothing is broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My common sense tells me that this list is complete garbo, and has no hope of ever rising beyond complete garbo. The view count is probably due to people simply googling for "hobbies" and Wikipedia's article being the third (for me at least...it will probably be generally similar for others) result, and not people using it for a "navigational purpose". Other sites can perfectly well discuss suggestions for hobbies to try out, and such like. Wikipedia cannot. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

View counts a good page does not make. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 16:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: LISTCRUFT. Agree with nom, and statement above "a list so completely subjective that it could include almost every human activity determined by an individual editor." // Timothy :: talk 14:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Compromise". Let's rename it List of human activities! Come one, come all: no activity too small or obscure! Clarityfiend (talk) 07:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC items 2, 3, 5, 8, and 10. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't like list articles and actively loathe infinite lists, but this meets all policy-based criteria for inclusion. It has a valid WP:SELCRIT, and 'too big' and 'unmanageable' and 'silly' and even 'useless' fall 100% under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would love to make this a delete !vote, but there simply is zero policy reasons to support such a decision. Until policy changes, Siroxo is absolutely correct that the proper result is to go full-draconian on required sourcing and leave it alone. Sorry & Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think there's anything to say that hasn't already been said, but this list is so broad as to be unencyclopedic. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. In particular, the following line from WP:SELCRIT is telling:

List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper.

BrigadierG (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on the basis of it being more or less indiscriminate - a list of activities done for enjoyment will be too long to have any use or meaning. It already attempts to list all sports. Potentially any activity could be done for enjoyment. Sionk (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NLIST but we should remove every hobby that does not have a citation in the list or add more citations if needed Isla 17:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo's sound analysis of this list and our policies plus Randy Kryn's common sense observation that readers flock to this list. Yes, it needs citations for entries but deletion ≠ cleanup. Eventually, it should become a list of lists with individual entries, but that's not the task at immediate hand. It meets our policies and guidelines.

I've been told I need a new hobby so this list will be helpful to me.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Siroxo, and the general premise that while it's a broad and somewhat loosely defined category there definitely is a core concept here, and ways to use citations to come to a general consensus of which things qualify as hobbies. Looking over a few other similarly broad concepts like occupations, frauds, cuisines and so on. WilsonP NYC (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops I butchered my links, which were: List of cuisines of the Americas, List of types of fraud, and Lists of occupations. WilsonP NYC (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Came here expecting to keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP, but the more I think about it, the more it seems like creating working inclusion criteria is impossible. Yes, you can find sources that say "X is a hobby" or "X is some person's hobby" just like you can find sources saying something is a "thing" or an "activity", but that's not sufficient. It's not just that it's subjective (we have lots of lists based on subjective terms -- genres, for example), but that it is only meaningful in its opposition to "professional" in the way it modifies "activity". It's even broader than a "list of jobs" because nearly any job can be someone else's hobby. It's just untenable. Thus delete per WP:SALAT. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rhododendrites and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Followup comment. First, Rhododentrites really hit the nail on the head with the observation that what makes this one such an odd duck is that "hobby" is just in opposition to "professional". But I also want to again note that for the people clamoring that we just need to include citations...no we don't, per WP:SKYISBLUE. Requiring that you can find some random RS that just happened to mention that so-and-so enjoyed X as a hobby is just going to eliminate things that should clearly be on the list, that no reasonable person is going to object to...and it will also bloat the list with completely pointless sources for things that do have them. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, take a look at User:The Blue Rider's proposed references and they're almost entirely off-handed mentions about something being someone's hobby. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 03:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's far from the truth, but if you want to strawman my sources do it as you will. The Blue Rider

09:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a classic case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Any number of activities can be considered a hobby. User:Let'srun 12:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see a lot of folks tagging WP:INDISCRIMINATE in this discussion. To butcher Inigo Montoya's famed quote, "I don't think that policy means what you think it means." INDISCRIMINATE is about providing appropriate context, and it explains four specific reasons that an article should not be created. None of them has any relevance here. You might mean WP:SELCRIT, but (again) nothing in SELCRIT precludes this article. Hobbies are discussed as a group in RSs, and everything listed (according to what I see) is notable enough for a stand-alone article and sourced as a hobby. As I said, I loathe these endless lists, but this one is 100% within policy. When objecting to huge, unwieldy lists, editors have proven that there are specific policies for managing such lists and none for deleting them. "Too big to be managed/reasonable/useful" is another way to say WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and for the record, I don't like it). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - Might converting this into a list of lists be a good compromise? Including things like List of games, List of sports, List of collectables, etc. MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS REAL EMO!_{(talk or whatever)} 06:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that's a generally good direction for this list to take even with a keep outcome. We'll have to take some care, as List of games may constitute individual hobbies, but we also might want to link to something like Outline of games § Types of games, as some people consider a type of game their hobby. It may suit us to provide a sentence or so of context from RS in some cases.

There are also some useful categories that could be crosslinked in lieu of a list, eg. Category:Observation hobbies —siro χ o 06:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Why Martial Arts Is The Perfect Hobby". ONE Championship – The Home Of Martial Arts. 2017-12-15. Retrieved 2023-09-02.
^ "Starting DJing As A Hobby". Pirate Studios. 2022-08-16. Retrieved 2023-09-02.
^ "Cleveland creative uses art hobby as a form of healing". spectrumnews1.com. Retrieved 2023-09-02.
^ "Why gaming is not just a hobby but a lifeline for millions of gamers". Sky News. Retrieved 2023-09-02.
^ Ghosh, Srijita (2023-05-01). "Mark Zuckerberg's Surprising New Hobby: Fashion Design". TechStory. Retrieved 2023-09-02.
^ Hunt, Elle (2021-10-27). "When the mystical goes mainstream: how tarot became a self-care phenomenon". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2023-09-02.
^ Myzelev, Alla (July 2007). "Whip Your Hobby into Shape: Knitting, Feminism and Construction of Gender". TEXTILE. 7 (2): 148–163. doi:10.2752/175183509X460065. ISSN 1475-9756.
^ Alexander, Field-Marshal Viscount (October 1946). "The Adventure of Painting as a Hobby". Design. 48 (2): 19–19. doi:10.1080/00119253.1946.10742539. ISSN 0011-9253.
^ Mann, Sylvia (1987), Taylor, Barry M. (ed.), "Playing Cards", Michael Dummett: Contributions to Philosophy, Nijhoff International Philosophy Series, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 187–199, doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3541-9_7, ISBN 978-94-009-3541-9

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!} 04:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hades 2[edit]

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

Fails WP:NVG/WP:GNG. The only RS-close article I found is the Nonada piece already used in the article. However, even that one only mentions the game in passing. Note that this discussion is about the 1999 Brazilian FPS, not the upcoming sequel to Hades. IceWelder [✉] 11:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 11:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this and this, but WP:INDISCRIMINATE is far from being passed. Still, there is probably coverage out there in WP:OFFLINE sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:38, 6 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 15:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N. None of the sources in the article are in-depth coverage from WP:RS. Actually, two of them are primary, and the other two are not even about the game itself. It seems a case of WP:SOAPBOX to me. In the pt.WP, the article was deleted three yrs ago.--Kacamata! ^Dimmi!!! 22:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are too few to satisfy WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:33, 10 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 Tony Tan#Personal life. Consensus there is insufficient coverage for a standalone article. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Chee Bee Kiang[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. All sources are incidental of the subject. Unable to find any prior significant mention of the subject online or in the news archive at NewspaperSG. – robertsky (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. – robertsky (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Spouse of the president of Singapore~~ Tony Tan. The 2011 AsiaOne piece, "Women behind the men" reads: "The woman behind one of the presidential candidates, Dr Tony Tan, remains elusive. Not much has been written publicly about Dr Tan's wife, Madam Mary Chee Bee Kiang, 70 (right, with Dr Tan). And Dr Tan's office declined this paper's request to interview her, with a spokesman replying via e-mail: "We will not be participating in this project as we believe before Singaporeans is the election of a President...". The article in The Straits Times is mainly a quote of Dr Tan's Facebook post thanking his wife for her "support and encouragement" during their 53rd anniversary. Not much else turns up in searches of Google.sg and Wikipedia Library, except for mentions of her name during official visits with her husband. There isn't enough coverage in independent reliable secondary sources to expand the stub meaningfully (and it seems she prefers to keep it that way for now); does not meet WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:09, 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 15:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tony Tan as ((R from spouse)). I agree with Cielquiparle's assessment of the suitability of a standalone article, but Tan's article seems better as a target. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 17:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's no positive contribution to either Wikipedia or general public knowledge by deleting her biography, and no negative drawback to keeping Mary Chee Bee Kiang. None. At the end of the day, she's a national public figure. You may argue that it's a minor role, but she and her position are still national and public, and Wikipedia has generally protected the wives/husbands of national leaders from deletion (aside from a small handful of editors targeting similar Asian biographies and consistently try to delete these biographies). And, for the record, I would have strongly advocated against the deletion/redirect of Mohammed Abdullah Alhabshee, the first man to hold the role, had I known he was up for mass deletion too. Scanlan (talk) 12:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there is no positive contribution to Wikipedia as well for keeping an article that carries no WP:GNG and the same information can be sought for in Tony Tan's article.

Also, there is no 'mass deletion' here. Only two articles were nominated by me, a Singaporean editor no less. Both are nominated separately so that each article can be evaluated on its own standing. I am pretty much aware of the perception of Asian BLPs being targeted for deletion, but make no mistake, I do not take deletions of articles lightly in general and have had conducted my research with local resources in hopes of shoring up the article. I was unable to find a single mention about Mary Chee that's apart from Tony Tan, that's even with Newslink, a newspaper archive of every article written in Singapore's national papers since 2001. (Access for Newslink is made available through Singapore's national library membership, which is virtually available to all Singaporean citizens and current residents at no or little cost). What I can conclude with my research is that Mary Chee is an extremely private person and was only present to accompany her husband in his official duties when required. She had no authority to exercise or even made use of the inherent intangible influence that a spouse of the President may have. – robertsky (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. Brachy08 _(Talk) 04:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spouse of the president of Singapore or redirect/merge to Tony Tan#Personal life. My argument from the Mohammed Abdullah Alhabshee AFD: "Not notable enough for a standalone article, but there will be people looking for info on this person. Keeping at least the search term will help satisfy these and also solve the WP:GNG issue." still stands on this article. S5A-0043^Talk 05:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tony Tan: Failed GNG but still notable for people to search for her. If there is any new references available in the future, we can remove the redirect then. JASWE (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agree that Tony Tan is the best target for a redirect and have struck my earlier recommendation for the main redirect target above. Yes, if more coverage about Mary Chee is published in reliable independent secondary sources in the future, we could/should convert the redirect back to a standalone article about her then. But for now it seems we should respect her privacy per WP:BLP and also, notability is not "inherited" or automatically passed from one's spouse per WP:NOTINHERITED. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:38, 16 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 Third Wire. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strike Fighters 2: Vietnam[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2009 with no attempts at improvement. WP:BEFORE turned up database entries, postings of the manual online, and forum posts. The only possible WP:SIGCOV I could find was this, from a Russian video game magazine. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Military. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 15:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Third Wire as an alternative to deletion. Not seeing anything. Timur9008 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Third Wire per others, as well as redirecting Strike Fighters 2, which is equally non-notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Third Wire. No identified reliable secondary sources to establish notability here. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:48, 9 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 Seawolf35 (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)‎[reply]

Ayesha Saffar[edit]

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

Not really notable, seems to fail GNG Seawolf35 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Islam, and Iran. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I discovered several book sources that provide sufficient coverage to meet GNG requirements. ([37], [38]). There is also a good chance that offline sources will be available. Thilsebatti (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did some google searches and those didn't uncover much but again I didn't look too hard. Thanks Seawolf35 (talk) 16:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pass Wp:GNG. I created this page. Offline sources such as books find in search by Google. But I must admit this: online sources very difficult to find. Anyway I think some books covered the subject. I must telling to @Thilsebatti: thanks sir. Appreciate that for your search. —Patricia (Talk) 18:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources are likely to be in Farsi. Curbon7 (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to comments above where the nominator appears persuaded. Suggest an early close. CT55555(talk) 23:43, 8 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamás Csehi[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, could find no coverage beyond stats websites and even those were scarce. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, until some evidence can be found of his participation in a notable club or league. Sionk (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - had a decent career in the top tier of Hungary but I can't find WP:SIGCOV. I found BAON but it's just an interview with no independent analysis. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 15 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 applies. ✗plicit 23:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EAST Initiative[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

tagged for insufficient sources in 2007, and the sources used are all primary ones. Couldn't turn up anything reliable online to support notability. ~T P W 14:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~T P W 14:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Earlier versions of the article included "Resources supporting the EAST model", listing several research papers specifically concerning EAST: see [39]. AllyD (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:46, 8 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pidge (company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating, as the previous AfD from two weeks ago resulted in a "soft delete" following which the author requested undeletion. This is a 4 year old WP:ROTM startup with no claim of significance or noteworthiness. Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine fundraising announcements and PR. Teemu.cod (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Teemu.cod (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They've launched nationwide growth and have raided 60 million in funding; typical PR stuff found in Gnews. Nothing for notability found otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haryana-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:49, 13 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hussain Abdul-Hussain[edit]

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

Unsourced article, created by a user with the same name as the subject of the article. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Journalism, and Lebanon. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be a columnist for the Arab News and Arab Weekly; all I find are his columns. No sourcing about the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG as there is no indication in the article of notability. Furthermore, are no RS about him at all. --hroest 16:28, 8 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. ✗plicit 23:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul D. Ginsberg[edit]

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

Doesn't have any WP:RS Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Georgia (U.S. state). AllyD (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Contested on talk page, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. BD2412 T 01:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, no sources with WP:SIGCOV of the subject, fails GNG. Tails Wx 14:28, 8 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} 06:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Petz Rescue: Ocean Patrol[edit]

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

This article has been unsourced for many years, and I could only find one reliable source that discussed it in-depth (https://www.ign.com/articles/2008/11/20/petz-rescue-ocean-patrol-review) and one that only discussed it for a paragraph. (https://www.ign.com/articles/2008/12/09/igns-kids-game-buyers-guide) QuietCicada (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. QuietCicada (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment found a GameZone review. [40]. Still searching.Timur9008 (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think with the IGN and Gamezone sources, we're at notability already. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced by only 2 reviews existing. This would not appear to pass the WP:GNG bar. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no magic number of necessary sources, but two reviews just isn't enough to substantiate that this is notable. There's no other Petz Rescue pages to merge to, and even the series when regarded as a whole has limited coverage. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:56, 9 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. ✗plicit 23:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harmuti Junction railway station[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG (train stations are not inherently notable) only coverage is routine coverage of coordinates, etc. in a few databases. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 11:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Assam. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is a listing of stations that will be redesigned (more than 1000 of them); outside of that, I don't see it as being architecturally notable or historical enough to warrant an article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:13, 8 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. I see no need for SALT, but ping me if I missed something. Star Mississippi 14:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ehsaas[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2012. PROD'd and restored. Elevating to AFD. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. UtherSRG (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:50, 14 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati Bubblaboo[edit]

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

Unsourced. PROD'd and restored. Elevating to AFD. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. UtherSRG (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No hits of any kind. Might be a hoax. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in IMDB under a slightly different spelling. Jclemens (talk) 22:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned in this blog. DareshMohan (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Unsourced. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 10:48, 14 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 List of programs broadcast by Imagine TV#Drama series. Clear consensus against a standalone article. No arguments against redirecting, and at the moment I see no basis for salting. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dehleez (2009 TV series)[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2020. PROD'd and restored. Elevating to AFD. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. UtherSRG (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 10:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Imagine TV#Drama series.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:44, 15 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 List of programs broadcast by DD National#Drama series. Clear consensus against a standalone article, no argument against a redirect specifically. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kahani Saat Pheron Ki[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2012 and unsourced. PROD'd and restored. Elevating to AFD. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programs broadcast by DD National#Drama series.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:19, 15 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. Star Mississippi 14:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paalkhi[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2015. PROD'd and restored. Elevating to AFD. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. UtherSRG (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NTV and WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 12:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 10:46, 14 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 per WP:A7. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youngboi OG[edit]

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

Don't see how it meets WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. It's WP:TOOSOON at best. Already been declined at AFC and had a PROD removed, so taking it here.Kj cheetham (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marked for speedy delete. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. Also, page history is uh... maybe someone should drop a note telling them to stop posting the PII of themselves and/or their friends? OS has already given things a once over though so. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:15, 8 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!} 04:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zubaida Rahman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTINHERITED. There seems to be decent coverage on her arrest alongside her husband, but WP:BLP1E. Redirect to Tarique Rahman as an WP:ATD. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 23:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC) Withdrawn per sources found. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previously prodded but recreated. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 23:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and Bangladesh. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Policy WP:BLP1E would apply only if the person were covered solely in the context of a single event. The 2014 Risingbd.com, and 2018 Jugantor and Ekushey TV articles cover her without reference to her involvement in any legal cases. Moreover, apart from the event, the person would have to be a low-profile individual and be likely to remain so. She does not meet the definition of a low-profile individual, and several articles discuss her as the potential leader of the opposition (and therefore future prime minister, if the opposition were ever to regain power), so we can't assume that she is likely to be low-profile in the future.

Essay WP:NOTINHERITED says the argument that "Zubaida Rahman is notable, because she is married to notable person Tarique Rahman" would be a fallacy. But no Wikipedian is making that argument. Being associated with a notable topic does not prevent a person from being notable. The essay goes on to say, "Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG." --Worldbruce (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Zubaida Rahman meets WP:GNG based on independent, reliable, secondary sources [41] and [42]. The first contains significant coverage about her family, education, and political prospects. The second contains significant coverage of the legal case against her and what would have to happen for her to be elected. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 09:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Worldbruce. She has received significant coverage in reliable sources.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only WP:BLP1E, Fails in WP:GNG Worldiswide (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What one event do you believe is the only thing she is notable for (to avoid your !vote being a WP:VAGUEWAVE)? Consider coverage of her in reliable sources such as [43]. How is that coverage "in the context of" your single event? --Worldbruce (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well says Worldbruce, This article does not apply WP:BPL1E. Rather than Zubaida Rahman got significant coverage on media. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 05:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn per sources identified. Can't be closed since someone !voted delete. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 03:27, 12 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!} 07:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyi Elvis Ogbonna[edit]

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

Non-notable topic of politician who hasn't meet the notability criteria for politicians or the general notability guidelines. I could make a table assessment if need be. Best, Reading Beans (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Reading Beans (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not even a single credible source to establish notability (NPOL, GNG), not on the article, not on the web. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete currently fails WP:GNG, but no prejudice to re-creation if better sourcing can be found. SportingFlyer T·C 17:57, 10 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} 07:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Record attendances for women's football (soccer)[edit]

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

Does not merit a separate article as of now. Seems weird to have a separate article for women's football record attendances when there is not one for football in general. If an article can be created, may it be under one title uniting men's and women's football. However, a merge to List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues#Top women's leagues in total attendance is not inappropriate either. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sports, and Football. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the title would need to be changed if kept anyways. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could form part of a wider article on Women's association football records and statistics, which would become the parent article of Category:Women's association football records and statistics. Giant Snowman 14:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has reliable third person sources to justify notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean much. This subject does not merit its own article and can be merged elsewhere or outright deleted. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there isn't an article titled as such for men's football - there is no reason why there should be an exclusive article for women's football, when there can be a general page like List of association football attendance records. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Dwanyewest. Clearly notable topic with many sourfces. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 17:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz: Again, you're not making a real argument. Becoming a habit... Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of association football attendance records - I can't see how there is enough here to justify a stand-alone article on this subject and the parent article can easily be expanded to incorporate both sexes. I would personally remove the sentences about the record women's attendance in Italy and New Zealand unless there are enough reliable sources to verify the record attendances for women's football in other countries. It just seems a bit random to single those two out. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as of now, "keep" arguments have not presented a single valid point as to why this article should exists. Delete/merge arguments stronger as of now. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is coverage and the Guinness Book of records lists it.There is coverage [44] ,[45] [46] [47]Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:13, 16 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Gamble (footballer)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has significant coverage already after pro contract and debut, with 2+ sources that pass GNG. You can find more of his coverage in Lancashire Telegraph here.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftifty - WP:TOOSOON, and does not pass WP:GNG. This is WP:ROUTINE coverage of his signing a pro contract, and this offers some significant coverage not enough to pass GNG. He will likely be notable in the future but not as of now, so I suggest draftifying and moving back to namespace when more articles surface once he makes more appearances. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:38, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as above. Giant Snowman 20:43, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Ortizesp. Young player with ongoing career in pro team with many sources already. THanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, sources above are not close to establishing GNG.

JoelleJay (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify young player who could become notable but currently does not pass WP:GNG. Paul Vaurie's second source is borderline SIGCOV as it has some non-routine, non-interview content. However that alone is not enough to pass GNG. The rest of the sources here and in the article are WP:ROUTINE transfer announcements, match reports, stats, etc. Willing to reconsider my !vote if more sources are brought up, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 13:05, 14 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 and redirect‎ to Angry Samoans. Title seems useful as a redirect, but there is consensus to delete the current article content. RL0919 (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck the War EP[edit]

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

Unsourced and tagged for notability since 2010. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, United States of America, and California. UtherSRG (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe redirect if the name is sufficiently unambiguous to make it worth it. Notability is not demonstrated and the author shares a name with a member of the band. Maybe that is a real COI or maybe not but it certainly doesn't inspire any additional confidence. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found for this album. "This Is Us" hits on this phrase in google, nothing we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP.

User:DanielRigal - "The author shares a name with a member of the band." Indeed, I share TWO - my brother's and my own former legal surname, "Saunders!" We interacted previously on my Talk page at [[48]] where User:Dronebogus was subjecting me to harassment over my writing style as expressed in Talk, objecting to the label "truscum" fallaciously touted as "reclaimed language" in the article on Transmedicalism as HATE SPEECH, which it surely is? What a JERK! (Dronebogus, whoever THAT is!)

I co-founded the Angry Samoans in 1979, with my name as given at birth, "Kevin [Eric 'Bonze'] Saunders," which my doltish colleagues (including my 4-years elder brother "Metal Mike" Saunders) decided was "Kevin Saunders" on our later releases without bothering to consult me.

INTERESTING FACTOID: User:UtherSRG or Stacey Robert Greenstein has worked for THREE of MY customers for dataComet, SAIC (Strategic Applications International Corporation), Raytheon (as Hughes Aircraft MS), AND Lockheed Martin (MS, manufacturers of the big Space Shuttle hydrogen tank and now LNG tanks)!

Now I don't want to cast any aspersions on the character of a person likewise involved in producing products used by the military-industrial complex - Hughes MS produces torpedoes! - is that cool or what? - but it's just conceivable that somebody Stacey knows with Lockheed or somesuch (I have four friends who worked down there in Owego?) suggested he take this down because the ANGRY SAMOANS have always held to an anti-war perspective - except where WAR was absolutely necessary, like say WWII? And on this very album we have my brother's tune "Let's Burn the Flag" - this upsets some people, but the Samoans are in fact at the "artsy" end of the PUNK-ROCK spectrum, what with the fannage for Alien Invasions ("Not of This Earth") and radical free speech and the like? (I was a member of the California Libertarian Party 11th District Executive Committee over "my time in the PUNK-ROCK service" lol 1978-1979. That's me on the far left at 1m17s! With the hair, wearing a DUST ME OFF promotional tee for the Fabulous Thirty Fingers of [DUST]? That's me! I'M NOW A GOVERNMENT-CERTIFIED TRANSSEXUAL! Cool, huh?)

Yes, I AM Bonze Annette Rose Blayk, barmayden and COMETMONGER. *I* have a COI here? Well… potentially… uh…

I don't get paid to do this. Sorry, it's a fact! You think this release isn't "notable" because it wasn't reviewed in the New York Times? It's PUNK-ROCK! Released on CD by a noteworthy punk-rock outfit! - Annette bonze blayk (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of this has anything to do with any of that except that I only saw that this was up for deletion because I still have your User Talk page on my automatic watchlist from before. I had completely forgotten about who you are or why we had previously interacted. I sincerely promise you that my !vote to delete has absolutely nothing to do with you being trans (In fact, I had forgotten that you are) or with that previous, entirely unrelated, issue. Nor is it any sort of value judgement about the quality of the music on the EP, which I have not heard. This is about the notability of the EP, nothing else. Not all music is notable. That doesn't mean it is bad. This is not a slight on you or the band.

Now, I appreciate that you are angry because you feel that you have been attacked here. I sincerely promise you that this is not the case. Your borderline incomprehensible !vote above does nothing to help your case and I really do think that you need to go back and remove all the personal attacks and irrelevant digressions.

Anyway, I've looked into the EP a little further and it sounds like Bad Trip Records might actually be Angry Samoans self-releasing. I'm not sure about that but, if so, that would suggest that this EP is less notable than their previous notable releases on Triple X Records.

If you know of anything that does demonstrate the notability of the EP then please let us know. That is the only thing that might actually affect the outcome here. "Fuck the war" is a fairly generic phrase and that makes it harder to search for coverage of this specific EP. If there is anything that meets WP:RS that we have not found then please do mention it. It doesn't have to be the New York Times. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:DanielRigal, "borderline incomprensible?"

You mean TL;DR. You could have tried to improve the article, but instead, I get more insults.

- Annette bonze blayk (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Bad Trip Records was targeted in a WP:DELETIONIST campaign some years ago and redirected to Angry Samoans.

Bad Trip Records is a division of *my* corporation, DATABEAST INC., which is not a non-profit corporation, but BAD TRIP RECORDS is not about personal profit! This is a FREE website, not another Google Adwords playground!

- Annette bonze blayk (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bonze blayk WP:BLUDGEON. Also please refrain from shouting, going off-topic, posting walls of text, and especially attacking other users. Please let the AfD process play out. Thanks for your cooperation. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 22:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not insulted you. Your !vote was genuinely very confusing. I have no idea why you are talking about military equipment, for example. (Please don't bother explaining it further unless it is directly relevant to the notability of the EP. It doesn't actually matter to the outcome here.) That is all I meant by "incomprehensible". Please go back and edit your !vote to take out the inappropriate/irrelevant parts. As for me editing the article, if I had found any good sources that we could use to demonstrate notability then I would have added it and changed my !vote but I didn't find anything.

Thanks for confirming that you are the owner of Bad Trip Records. I'm afraid that this is a conflict of interests when it comes to this issue. As the owner of the label, I assume that you kept notes of any media coverage it got? In fact, you might be the one person best placed to know whether there was any. Please let us know about any coverage that the EP received. As I said, it does have to be RS but it doesn't have to be a major publication like the NYT. Specialist music magazines, local newspapers, etc are all potentially valid. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discogs says that this EP was released on Triple X Records. I'm not sure if that was a joint release or separate but, either way, this means that the EP is not entirely self-released and that does address one of my concerns above. I've added that to the article. I don't think it is enough to save it as I still can't find any RS coverage even after adding "Triple X" to the search. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing personal boys and girls, and please, keep it short. We don't have time to read rambling musings that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. Peace and love. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I guess I should actually vote. Unsourced for thirteen years and no chart appearances, plus COI. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Angry Samoans as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Due to lack of notability and possible conflicts of interests, I believe that we need to delete this article.Gabe114 (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Absolute junk. scope_creep^Talk 04:17, 14 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!} 06:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Snagov region[edit]

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

Unsourced article. Scarce discussion in sources. This region either does not exist or is just a colloquial term used by the area's inhabitants without historical, cultural or administrative use, hence the lack of sources. And the flag is a hoax. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Romania. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been moved to the draft space, and will continue to be worked on, sources to be added, and the article as a whole expanded. The region does indeed exist and there are plenty of sources for it. Also, what do you mean by "the flag is a hoax" ? There is a reason why it says "unnoficial" flag. It is a flag used by the people of the region to represent, not officially adopted by any administrative body.

I look forward to responses.

Thanks. TheSnagovian (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what kind of source is "Constitution of the Snagovian People's Republic, Chapter II. Article 3." supposed to be. Currently the census is citing WP:Original research as it is not allowed to manually merge figures (it would be allowed to separately list the population of the three communes). The sixth source does not talk about a "Snagov region" that Balta Doamnei would be part of, it only says that originally the land in which it is located was property of the Snagov Monastery. The seventh and eighth sources are from a (touristic/ecologist?) company, that's not considered a WP:Reliable source. We need scholars or newspapers talking about this region.

Though not all regions need to have an article in the first place. Clearly well-defined and widely discussed regions like Northern Bessarabia or Northern Bukovina do not have articles, it is also a matter of WP:Notability. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the link for the fifth source [49], page 337 only mentions "Regiunea Snagov–Moara Săracă", it's been only added here after a search by the author of "Regiunea Snagov", who just added that source because it mentioned the words "Regiunea" (region) and "Snagov" together. The "Snagov–Moara Săracă Region" in that source is a geological region dated to the Early Cretaceous and the Neogene, it does not verify the information regarding the communes that would compose this region. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to the fourth source [50] through the Wikipedia Library, so I can't put an open-access link. The source doesn't even mention Snagov in its main body, only in a citation. The "Snagov region" is not a discussed topic in that source. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The third source is a full volume divided in four issues. I searched "Snagov" in all of them [51] [52] [53] [54], the last two don't even mention Snagov, the second only talks about "Snagov; and Gruiu forest districts" in a botanical article and the first are only source citations. This supposed topic is not discussed by any sources and the ones cited do not verify the information in the article. This pretty much a WP:HOAX. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this is all connected to a fictional micronation [55]. The flag and described geographical extent match. There are 0 reliable sources discussing this. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG based on the sources - appears WP:SYNTH - and a source search only brought up mere mentions, not anything which clearly defines this region. The flag is also some sort of odd POV thing. SportingFlyer T·C 11:09, 8 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. There is no little participation here after one relist and the previous AFD means that this can't be closed as Soft Deletion. Please wait much, much longer before bringing this article back to AFD #3. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse (Anglican Network)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of being notable for a brand new organisation. Fails WP:NCORP. First main block of references is WP:PRIMARY, WP:SPS sources. scope_creep^Talk 07:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, we just closed an AfD on this about a week ago, I'm not sure I have the energy to make the same points again. here

JMWt (talk) 12:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries @JMWt:, you can relax. I will do the talking for you.The editor has been seen as what they are, a UPE/Spammer and is thankfully blocked now. I was planning to take them to WP:ANI this afternoon, but they are now gone. scope_creep^Talk 13:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are chronically bad for brand new organisation. I can't understand the !voting in the previous Afd. scope_creep^Talk 13:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Christianity, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not entirely sure I see any direct COI issues in the current article but there was clearly a personal relationship between the creator and the organization/its members. This discussion wasn't posted to a few relevant noticeboards until very late so I say we ought to come back to this in a couple months. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We just closed the last AFD on this article 3 weeks ago. I'm tempted to procedurally close this as Keep as we've done other times.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets examine the sources in the first block:

Ref 1 [56] This is a routine announcement of new website. It is WP:PRIMARY on a church which reads like a blog. Nam is the diocese of Bristol’s Minority Ethnic Vocations Champion. So that his local website.
Ref 2 [57] Company site. Non-rs.
Ref 3 [58] Another routine annoucement of formation. It is WP:PRIMARY. Not independent.
Ref 4 [59] Raw search url is non-rs.404
Ref 5 [60] It is WP:PRIMARY. Not independent.
Ref 6 [61] This reads like another annoucement from a press-release announcing its formation.
Ref 7 [62] This is an interview with Mark Nam. Its is not independent.
Ref 8 [63] This comes closest to be a real article but it is not independent.
Ref 9 [64] States it a press-release. Non-RS.
Ref 10 [65] It is an article by Mark Nam and is not independent.

There is not a lot that can be said to be independent, in-depth, reliable and secondary. It fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 14:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might need to have quite a long think about why nobody else is prepared to engage in !voting on this AfD. JMWt (talk) 20:28, 8 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. While some editors argued that the article's content could be salvaged by draftifying the page, merging the content into broader articles, or even broadening the scope of this particular article, the opposition of these alternatives was significant enough to the point of lacking consensus to do so. Hence, delete. ✗plicit 05:48, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nike Phantom Luna[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All included references read like paid advertisement. I've just removed a couple of links that were direct links to sales sites. This page has been clearly designed for advertising. At the very least this needs WP:TNT. TarnishedPath^talk 06:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. TarnishedPath^talk 06:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NOTADVERT. I'd not agree with the statement above that "All included references read like paid advertisement", but only because some of the sources don't mention the boots at all, or merely mention them in passing, though apparently being cited for things they don't say. The apparent claim to notability, that these are one of the first football boots intended for women is so vague as to be inconsequential (Nike alone seems to advertise 99 different styles of football boots for women [66]), and is directly contradicted by the first source cited - a Guardian piece noting that other companies have been designing boots specifically for women prior to Nike's product. Sources discussing a genuinely-article-worthy subject - the need for sports equipment designed specifically for women - have been co-opted to pad out an article otherwise built around the (closely paraphrased) regurgitation of Nike marketing-speak. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, there was one citation where the only reference to the boot was underneath an image which was literally and advertisement for the boots. I was of half a mind to remove that reference. TarnishedPath^talk 06:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This would've been a great test case for the archival concept permeating WP:VPIL at the moment -- there are a few sources that could be valuably added to Football boot, but not in any sort of broad-scope merge. I'm somewhere between deleting and draftifying at the moment, but I'm really not ideologically a fan of forced draftification, so landing at delete pending further discussion (Kingsif doesn't seem to be online at the moment and may wish for it to be draftified or selectively merged). Vaticidalprophet 06:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: Having read the article and the sources, I agree that this is a TNT-worthy, heavily promotional writeup full of assertions of shaky provenance. That such an article made it to DYK is a profound failure of process. Ravenswing 07:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No consideration seems to have been made regarding whether this topic passes NCORP. The sources in the article are a piece by a freelance contributor in the Guardian's women's football newsletter; an invited paper on women's football sports engineering (coauthored by people with clear COIs) that doesn't mention the product; the BBC piece where the only mention of the cleat is in an image caption; a piece in Sky Sports with no byline that is borderline-illiterate in places and clearly regurgitates Nike promotion (e.g. Sky: The Phantom Luna has a new and innovative circular stud pattern, named the Cyclone 360, which will allow players to move more freely with agility, precision and security on the pitch. Nike: Phantom Luna features a breakthrough new traction pattern, Nike Cyclone 360, reducing rotational traction and helping players move with agility, precision, and confidence on the field.); a Forbes contributor piece with egregious comma usage that briefly mentions the product; and slightly later Sky Sports piece (bylined) that just reprints all the promo text about the Phantom Luna from the first piece.

JoelleJay (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can see nothing notable about a footwear manufacturer realising that they have to make shoes of a subtly different shape for female feet. This is a normal thing when one makes shoes. WP:ADMASQ, and fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shockingly novel thing when it comes to football boots, actually. Kingsif (talk) 11:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif Now that might be an article. The boot? Not so much 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I elaborate below, I agree. Kingsif (talk) 13:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there is some significant coverage like the Guardian article, it isn't enough for WP:NCORP (and isn't enough for WP:GNG). Multiple sources containing in-depth coverage are required.—Alalch E. 07:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try a lil' experiment. Several sources don't even mention the Phantom Luna. That makes this a bad article, but makes the content cited to these sources valuable to reuse elsewhere (like Football boot suggested above, or a broad-concept article around women-specific sports equipment). Hence we're not meeting WP:DEL-REASON #4 ("Advertising [...] without any relevant or encyclopedic content"). Draftification seems appropriate, but is unlikely to yield anything broad-concept article I'd like to see, and there's nothing to "incubate" because this will likely never be notable. After reading Siroxo's essay on similar AfDs, I think we should instead try a little experiment: keep, boldly move to a new broad-concept title about sportswear designed with women's physiology in mind, and trim the Nike-specific parts to the bare minimum (i.e. keep just the "Background" section). That won't be a great article at first, but it'll be better than nothing, and will IMO better respect the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. Definitely shouldn't have made DYK but let's not overcorrect. DFlhb (talk) 07:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely like to hear Siroxo's thoughts here, because this falls right into the sort of messy situation we were talking about at VPIL. I don't think there's a clear 'keep' path here, even in merge or redirect format -- the title isn't too great a redir. But there are usable sources here that can be reappropriated in a much broader context. Vaticidalprophet 07:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A move without leaving a redirect might be appropriate here. IMO the instruments at our disposal for AfD can be too blunt at times. DFlhb (talk) 07:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't dived too deep into this subject, but I am supportive of working towards an article around women's sports equipment. The background section seems quite promising on an initial read through, even citing academic work. Such an article has to start somewhere. Seems like a viable REFUND candidate for this specific purpose. —siro χ o 06:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well...are these refs really that valuable? The linked study is coauthored by multiple people affiliated with The Football Association and individual football clubs (including ones directly sponsored and kitted by various footwear brands) as well as sports performance tech companies(*). The study referenced in the BBC source is not yet published and is also industry-sponsored. The comments section of this article also features the remarkably apt contribution I’m not sure I would like wearing football boots. I’m a Male I just like to check everything out on the Newsround website

I would be more persuaded by research that does not emphasize the need to develop women's fit footwear by people affiliated with the companies making women's fit footwear.

(*)Dr Katrine Okholm Kryger, Dr Nicola Brown, Dr Georgie Buinvels and Dr Athol Thomson have received funding from sports technology companies for research purposes. Dr Craig Rosenbloom, Dr Sean Carmody, Ms Alicia Tang, Dr Ritan Mehta, Dr Naomi Datson and Ms Elena Jobson are or have recently worked on elite women’s football for teams sponsored by sports technology companies. Ms Leah Williamson is a professional player and is sponsored by Nike. JoelleJay (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The refs are garbage. If there was going to be content written elsewhere as suggested it would have to be with different refs. Nothing redeemable here. No baby in the bath water here. Yeet it. TarnishedPath^talk 09:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; I skimmed the study but didn't check the Acknowledgements section. DFlhb (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of ACL injuries within woman's football is something that definitely deserves an article. But having done a, admittedly quick, check this article seems to overemphasise footware as the issue. The notable issue,the injuries and the underlying causes of them, is pushed into the background of a shoe article. It's definitely a noteworthy subject that I hope someone picks up, but this article is a very poor way of highlighting it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 12:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't have time to update the section about female predominance at the ACL injuries article, introduce a section about lack of women's boots at the football boot article, or create a focused article, but (as I mention below) we need content about the history of gender disparity in the technical side of sports, too. Kingsif (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but this is a marginally notable footnote on that issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree; I meant that, the issue is what interested me and I felt needed coverage. With encouragement to create DYK-eligible content, I did what you said: focused on the footwear and put it in a tangential article that probably doesn't meet GNG and I filled out with primary refs heavy with promo. I was agreeing, but suggesting if you want the issue to be done justice on Wikipedia you might have to do it yourself (rather than hope someone picks [it] up). Kingsif (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have another year or so of work doing what I'm doing now, and the subject deserves someone better than I to write the article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per the comments above. I'm genuinely stunned that this made it to DYK. Hell, before it was pruned today, the "Design" section opened with "The Nike Phantom Luna is part of Nike's Phantom range, which is intended for precision with power.^[1]" Just look at the source for that and weep. That several people thought this was remotely fit to adorn the front page, well, it leaves me almost speechless. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Boing! said Zebedee, that wasn't the only blatant sales page I pruned. Have a gander at this one.^[2] TarnishedPath^talk 10:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Nike Phantom Football Boots". Sports Direct. Archived from the original on 31 July 2023. Retrieved 31 July 2023.
^ "Nike Phantom Luna Elite Firm-Ground Football Boot. Nike UK". Nike.com. Archived from the original on 2023-07-31. Retrieved 2023-07-31.

Delete or move to draft. When news stories like the one in the Guardian are used with respect of Indian and South African companies they are described at WP:AFD as advertorials and not accepted as independent sources when assessing notability. So the same should apply to Nike.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As creator. When I saw both Guardian and Forbes (subject-expert contributor, acceptable per RSN) coverage on top of a Sky Sports report mention, I had hoped to start a stub or draft. Encouraged to get more women's football hooks onto DYK, I expanded it with info direct from Nike - not a great choice. Either way, the intention was to get coverage of the somehow-revolutionary-in-2023 concept of creating football boots to fit women on here; with admission of my own laziness in expanding to get to DYK, I would have !voted for the above-suggested selective merge of content regarding this lack of football boots for women to a section of that article. Considering the vitriol here towards using industry-sponsored research (a.k.a. most research) as a source, it seems clear that some users would go and remove that so what's the point. Kingsif (talk) 11:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy, and trouts all round for those who help give this entire cock-up more oxygen than it needs. SN54129 11:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets WP:GNG, per Kingsif's comment above, and per new sources added today. A very notable shoe for its approach in pioneering women's football shoes. If I am a woman and a football player then this shoe would be for me, but heaven forbid, let's forget women and sports on Wikipedia and get back to the important stuff, the big games this weekend! Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but allow re-creation - I think WP:TNT probably applies here, per the above. However, we should allow for selective WP:REFUND so that an actual article can be written, if there is one under this. Whether it's part of a list or a stand-alone, is immaterial. - jc37 13:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - I don't think sourcing is enough, but there is potential. Giant Snowman 14:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a new article about the female football boot, as it seems to have structural differences than a male version. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20 year editor and I still can't get the hang of wiki text, ouch. Please trout me lol. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Drafify A very appropriate alternative per our actual policy of WP:ATD. Clearly editing can improve the article. WP:TNT and WP:REFUND are invoked above - and both imply that the topic is notable. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Advocating for draftification and hypothesizing a future refund by some editors does not mean that they did a WP:BEFORE, and an inference that the subject is notable made from their !votes should not be made. There is a legitimate disagreement about whether the subject is notable. If it isn't notable, I don't think that we should draftify because draftspace isn't a holding area for topics that proved non-notable after a full discussion. The article can be easily refunded at DRV when more/better sources appear and someone is interested to write about this topic in the future. —Alalch E. 15:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Attempts at saving it at the moment have resulted in a WP:SYNTH mess. This is not notable and if people want to write an article about something else let them write that article about that other thing without this current un-notable synth mess. TarnishedPath^talk 23:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rescope: I was gonna leave a lengthy source analysis here, but the long and short of it is that pretty much every RS cited here (with the exception of Sky Sports 2023) lacks significant coverage of the topic at hand, especially when broad-concept and manufacturer talk is discounted. There does seem to be the sourcing for a broad-concept article, though, and I'd be interested to see how that shapes itself. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And the Sky Sports ref is full of minimally-reworded text from nike.com. JoelleJay (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and we consider them generally reliable...? yeesh. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since this is such a clear consensus, would appreciate someone with an account also AfDing the even less-well sourced Nike Mercurial Vapor, Nike Hypervenom, Nike CTR360 Maestri, Nike Tiempo, and Nike Total 90. -75.164.167.40 (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably get a "Footy-Boots.com" discussion going at RSN... I consider myself too involved to do either, but at a glance the articles you list are unsourced promo disasters; I say this to show further regret at letting the standard of the Hypervenom article influence my editing of the Phantom Luna one. Kingsif (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a look at all of those articles and shaved off unambiguous sales sites and citations which did not say what was being claimed, but without some guidance on the remaining references I'm not going to proceed any further. Your suggestion is probably the correct way to go. Perhaps I'll do so latter if I have time. I don't know. TarnishedPath^talk 06:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've sought advice on RSN. TarnishedPath^talk 02:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any coverage of this as part of a more broad topic should be written from scratch, rather than starting with a commercial and trying to make it look respectable. XOR'easter (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Attempts to fix this article while it's being debated have led to WP:SYNTH issues being introduced and I still don't see it passing WP:GNG because the majority of the references are garbage and/or barely mention the shoe in any sort of depth. TarnishedPath^talk 02:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation. Everything that can be said about this has basically been said, including by the creator, who !votes to delete above. I suppose I may add that our sourcing policies have led us down a somewhat uncomfortable path, and this is what I see as the issue here, rather than folly on the part of the creator. jp×g 03:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I have started RfCs for a number of sites which review football/soccer boots over on WP:RSN. The RfCs I have started are for Football-Boots.com, SoccerBible.com and SoccerCleats101.com. TarnishedPath^talk 14:07, 9 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!} 05:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Walkwalkwalk[edit]

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

Could find nothing in gnews (also searched under "walk walk walk"). Most of the sources provided are primary. Sources 9-12 merely confirm they were exhibited. Fails GNG LibStar (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and England. LibStar (talk) 04:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a book reference https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Walking_Networks/cuXaDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22Walkwalkwalk%22+-wikipedia&pg=PA74&printsec=frontcover - I'll add it to the article later today. Newystats (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is the book ref I've found as a secondary source and though the are primary, the three Heddon and Turner scholarly papers doi:10.1080/10486801.2012.666741, doi:10.1080/13528165.2010.539873 and doi:10.1080/13528165.2010.539873 are independent. Newystats (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have updated further references from a few different fields, which should help establish notability. The article could still use some clean and expansion, but I have made it so most of the references are from scholarly literature, rather than self cited. Genericxz (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess newly added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per added sources since the nomination and the fact that Walking art is a real thing and this is a prominent example. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 10 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!} 03:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Come Home to Me (album)[edit]

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

Schaffer is known more for The Lonely Island and his film work than any solo albums. I couldn't find any sources that would suggest this album has any independent notability. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Found zero evidence of notability or that this even exists. The cover art is blatantly from Come Home with Me by Cam'ron and should be speedily deleted even before the conclusion of this AfD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder now if this is just a hoax and the author should be blocked as someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted corporate fanfiction of theirs involving NickMusic and Universal Kids, so they're a more slow-burn type of NOTHERE account that is trying to evade detection. Nate • (chatter) 04:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much my suspicion. None of the usual databases (Discogs, Album of the Year, Rate Your Music, AllMusic) had any mention of it, and if none of them do then it's either the most obscure album on the planet despite being from a significantly famous comedian, or it's fake. The latter sounds a ton more likely to me. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is almost certainly a hoax, or if it's not a hoax it may be based on rumors. Either way, the album does not exist. Note that the Akiva Schaffer article does not mention this album or any or other albums released under his own name. (He has some albums as a member of the troupe Lonely Island, which are properly attributed.) I also found this in which someone punked a file relevant for someone else's album article. Delete under whatever policy "not a thing" falls under. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:51, 8 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. I don't think an additional relisting would bring this discussion to a consensus a closer could act on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Luiz of Orléans-Braganza[edit]

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

Biography article about a Brazilian person who was a descendant of the then/now-extinct Brazilian royal family. Most, if not all, of the information in the article deals with information other than relevant biographical data about Pedro Luiz of Orléans-Braganza himself. Details are purely genealogical. The interwikis seem to have been built on cross-wiki spam. I bring it for community evaluation. Sturm (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Brazil. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've taken a close look at each of the sources. The only ones that give him some coverage that isn't just mentioning his name are the ones about his demise in a plane crash, and even then, not enough coverage to say any of them qualify for attesting WP:GNG. Since monarchy was abolished in Brazil almost 2 centuries ago and there's zero chance that it's ever coming back, the claim of being a pretender to the throne is not noteworthy enough to sustain the article. Rkieferbaum (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PROD'd article, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-sourced and coverage of his dynasitc position and death in plane crash. Richiepip (talk) 14:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Richiepip: "Dynastic"? A dynasty is defined as "a succession of rulers". Pedro Luiz wasn't a ruler. His father wasn't a ruler. Neither his father's father, or his father... there's no dynasty to speak of. And reports of dying in a plane crash don't qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Rkieferbaum (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is beyond ridiculous to claim the House of Orléans-Braganza is not a dynasty. Richiepip (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me if you have anything of substance to add to your point. And please keep it civil. Thanks. Rkieferbaum (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Richiepiep. I also strongly oppose deletion. This is not ptwiki where any sort of work is destroyed. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:54, 7 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!} 03:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to House of Orléans-Braganza. A good portion of the article is dedicated to his family, and the rest is mostly his personal life, which doesn't seem notable. The sources as well are mostly about his family or about his death. Listing him in the members of the House and noting his death would suffice in my opinion. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see no reason to delete. A person doesn't have to be super well-known to be notable enough to have an article. There are references about him and they seem like reliable sources. It seems kind of nit-picky and excessively deletionist to delete this article. The article seems too long to redirect to House of Orléans-Braganza, though redirecting would certainly be better than deleting. Vontheri (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it was deleted from Wikpedia in Portuguese per WP:NOTINHERITED. It was previously discussed that it doesn't make sense a line of succession of monarchy doesn't exist anymore for more than 100 years. 1993 Brazilian constitutional referendum is a good example of how irrelevant monarchist movements are in Brazil. It should be deleted per WP:NTEMP because most of the news appeared when he died. Kimbler (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
N This is the english wikipedia, not the portuguese. Completely irrelevant if they have an agenda and decided to delete it. 2804:388:411A:9335:1:0:2DBB:8641 (talk) 18:34, 13 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. Nominator has withdrawn their deletion request and there is no other support for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Open House (1964 TV series)[edit]

(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 2022. PROD removed because it "ran for 32 episodes". Still needs reliable sources though. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TV Pop Diaries appears to cover it. It's pretty sparse, but it asserts that it collects information from primary sources, which could make it an independent RS. More to the point, this actually says a tiny bit about the show. which our otherwise permastub doesn't appear to cover. Jclemens (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Edmund, Bill (1964-09-03). "Open House". The Stage and Television Today. No. 43531. p. 14. ProQuest 1040483054.
  The review notes: "This is a mixture of odds and ends which you can pick up and let drop as you wish, watching this or that as it catches your fancy and then returning to your book, or your woodwork or the ironing. If you are a critic you watch it right through. All five thousand four hundred seconds of it. It has improved quite a lot since BBC-2 started. It runs more smoothly than it did though it still lacks bite. The interviews with the celebrities would be much better if they weren't thanked quite so gushingly for condescending to come. But I prefer my celebrities to be doing that which made them famous rather than chatting to someone else. Unless I lost count, there were fifteen different items in the programme last Saturday. There was something for everybody, as they say. ... All in all a hotch-potch of a programme for dipping into. To watch from beginning to end is too much. But how do you know when to switch on for the items you fancy? You can't. You don't. You have to leave the set on and pop your head round the door now and then, or sit through it."
2. Norris, Marjorie (1964-04-30). "Open House". The Stage and Television Today. No. 4333. p. 12. ProQuest 1040496840.
  The review notes: "On this first showing, Open House is a sort of elephants' graveyard of all the old discarded television programmes. Like the ghosts in Richard III, they popped up one after another wailing "Remember me!" Of course, a loosely-shaped magazine of this kind needs time to find its feet. It would not be fair to write it off as a failure after the first edition, but some hard thinking will have to be done pretty sharpish if Open House is not to carve itself a deep canyon of bad habits from which no one will be able to escape. Gay Byrne, who I have not seen before, has a pleasant, relaxed charm. But what a struggle the poor man had to inject a little yeast into the soggy dough. The idea of a programme you can pick up and drop whenever you like is a good one—even if it is a dead pinch from radio's Roundabout. ... All the same, the musical numbers were the best features of this programme except when the sets cut performers' heads off. For my money, the star of the show was Joe Brown. This young performer has come on apace in the last year but he must learn not to giggle at his own remarks."
3. Otta (1964-05-06). "Foreign Television Reviews: Open House". Variety. Vol. 234, no. 11. p. 47. ProQuest 962676819.
  The review notes: "Sport has monopolized Saturday afternoon tv up to now, so the third channel has only to stray from it to provide an alternative. This is what "Open House" sets out to do, in the form of an informal equivalent to the easily flippable magazine or to radio for motorists. It's a show that can be dropped in on, and the only question it raises is whether audiences will treat it just as casually. After all, you can't drive an automobile and watch tv at the same time. ... Producers T. Leslie Jackson and Stewart Morris gave a slick and fast-moving format to the melange, and the chief fault was the general flabbiness of Tony Marriott's script, especially in the linking. The interviews, too, seemed a decade out of date. Columnist Lord Arran came over best in this branch of the program, for he makes a living at being outrageous. Tony Osborne's smooth orchestra gave fine backing throughout, though Osborne should give up winking at the camera. Certainly, it was an alternative in horizontal viewing."
4. "BBC Drops Top Radio, TV Shows". Billboard. Vol. 76, no. 49. 1964-12-05. p. 27. ProQuest 1505937585.
  The article notes: "And Britain's new third TV channel, BBC-2, will be without its all-Saturday-afternoon magazine show, "Open House," (which concentrated on pop) after Dec. 5."
5. Crozier, Mary (1964-06-04). "BBC-2 roundup". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "I have only seen one of the Saturday afternoon programmes "Open House," and not all of that, so I will say only that nothing I saw would have brought me in to the set or kept me at it, unless I had been a prisoner, infirm, aged, or a critic. The slow, relentless pottering, the bad jokes, the schoolboy howlers, the silly drawings to illustrate news items, the ineffably coy and cosy air of the whole thing was unbelievable. There did seem, however, to be one useful and interesting idea, that of showing places like the Tower of London and Greenwich with the Cutty Sark. There were details of how to get there and what it cost. But for the most part "Open House" is like a reversion to the oldest days of television when to see anything on the screen at all was a marvel. Let's hope it fascinates all those sport-hating women."
6. Barrett, Nicholas (1964-12-04). "An introduction of the new service to Midland viewers" (pages 1 and 2). Birmingham Post. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "And what an alternative is has been—Open House, up to two hours of ingratiating light entertainment, which has had in its favour only the fact that it was "live," which seems to count for so much in television circles; not that an audience cares. People who watch Saturday afternoon television on BBC1 are watching because they want to see sport, not because they want to watch television. Open House seems to have catered for people who have nothing better to do than watch the box. Its all-grinning, all-jesting presentation from the inevitable black Vynide swivel chair can have done little more than mildly tickle the passing fancy of the sort of audience whose sensibilities have already been dulled by the ad-men. ... The big surprise the real volte-face-comes with the news that Saturday afternoon tele on the second channel is being dropped. Open House, roundly condemned elsewhere, is to go."
7. Knight, Peter (1964-11-11). "BBC-2 Audience Rises By Half-Million". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2023-09-11. Retrieved 2023-09-11 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "The Saturday afternoon programme, Open House, would be dropped. This would enable BBC-2 to go on the air earlier in the evening and finish later."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Open House to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:38, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per the sources identified by Cunard. DonaldD23 talk to me 00:56, 12 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. In order to Keep an article, you need to present policy-based responses to the nomination statement. Feel free to create a Redirect from this page title but no Redirect target article was suggested here to make that an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UFO Kidnapped[edit]

(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 2022. PROD was removed and a lot of references added, but they are all database sites, youtube and other video sites, as well as forums. None of them pass the reliable source test needed to pass notability requirements. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and Canada. DonaldD23 talk to me 02:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect, as it is famous Nickelodeon production, even though the sources that are available may not be what is considered to be the best to use. If it can't be kept, then it should be redirected as to let this all go to waste would be a shame. Also this was once a red link as someone really thought that it should have been created, which I did. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for television shows doesn't hinge on asserting that the show was "famous", it hinges on the quality of the sources that can or can't be shown to properly verify that the show was as "famous" as you claim. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, television shows are not "inherently" notable just because they existed, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on their sourcing — but all I can find on either ProQuest or Newspapers.com is television listings grids and glancing namechecks of this special's existence in sources that aren't about it in any non-trivial sense, which isn't the kind of sourcing we need to see. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 12 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 List of traffic collisions (2000–present)#2014. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Doti bus accident[edit]

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

Non-notable accident. News story in violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:EFFECT. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Nepal. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails all criteria for WP:NEVENT. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seawolf35 (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of traffic collisions (2000–present)#2014 per WP:ATD-R. S5A-0043^Talk 13:40, 13 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!} 01:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Garrison[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks significant, in-depth coverage independent of the subject. Went to AfD a decade ago and was closed as "no consensus" after a poorly attended discussion. Neutrality^talk 01:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and Texas. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the nominator suggests, there are no independent, reliable secondary sources that offer any significant coverage of him, and I can't find anything better. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Quick BEFORE check shows nothing for the subject or the talk show in the lead. I'm not sure how often we redirect failed congressional candidates, but we could send this to 2012 United States House of Representatives elections in Texas § District 25 as WP:ATD —siro χ o 15:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per those above. I'm not sure this would merit a redirect given that Garrison didn't even qualify for the runoff of the primary election, let alone the general election. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Candidates are not notable just for being candidates, and it's even more crystal clear in retrospect. SportingFlyer T·C 17:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable secondary sources to show notability, thus notability has not been met. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:51, 13 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 as withdrawn. (non-admin closure) dawnbails (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Best... Album in the World...Ever![edit]

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

article has remained completely unsourced for what appears to be two decades now. found what seems to be only one source (House of Fun: The Story of Madness by John Reed) that actually makes any sort of mention of this series but it's incredibly brief. other mentions of this album just have one of its corresponding albums on their lists without any sort of discussion relating to it—maybe someone else's search for good sources will work out. might be worth a draftify, but given the extremely long age of this article, it probably wouldn't help at all. Dawnbails (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

will withdraw per siroχo and WP:SNOW. hope this article gets at least some sort of upkeep. Dawnbails (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music. Dawnbails (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many, maybe most of these individually meet WP:NALBUM. Many of these albums appeared on various national music charts. Here's one arbitrary week in Scotland with no less than 4 of these albums on the chart in a single week [67]. Here's at least two albums that made it to #1 in England [68][69], here's some others that made it onto the charts [70][71][72]

Many received reviews and other coverage in print and television. For our immediate edification we have various AllMusic reviews[73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82] ... dozens more.

I want to be clear this was not an in-depth search. This is the tip of the iceberg here. Sorting out individual notable ones seems unhelpful and a likely TRAINWRECK so I defer to WP:NOPAGE: Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page —siro χ o 03:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per siroχo — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 13:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per siroχo. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:44, 8 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!} 01:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Kakko[edit]

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

Ambassadors are not inherently/automatically notable. Gnews and gbooks only shows small mentions but not enough to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, and Finland. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as well as WP:NBIO.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 06:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absent better sourcing. Helsingin Sanomat has an obituary [83] and a memorial thing [84] (both paywalled), but both are written by the subject's colleagues making them non-independent. There are also some passing mentions in older Finnish newspapers, but based on a quick sampling these appear to be on the level of individual sentences. None of these appear to reach the levels required by WP:GNGor WP:NBIO. Ping me if better sources are found and I'll happily reconsider. -Ljleppan (talk) 07:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no relevant sources that would prove her notability. (only a few sporadic mentions) --TadejM ^{my talk} 00:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, seems like a clear cut case for me. I support deletion unless in-depth reliable sources are provided. A09 (talk) 20:46, 11 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 Conservatism in Hong Kong#Conservative localism. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Party (Hong Kong)[edit]

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

WP:SIRS: I can’t find any SIGCOV that is more than a passing mention of the existence of this party. NM 18:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. NM 18:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2016 Hong Kong Legislative Council candidates' disqualification controversy or Conservatism in Hong Kong#Conservative localism (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Conservative Party (Hong Kong) is mentioned at both of the possible targets. In my searches for sources, I was able to find only passing mentions in reliable sources of the Conservative Party (traditional Chinese: 保守黨; simplified Chinese: 保守党). The political party does not pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support a redirect. NM 23:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is for a redirect, I would recommend a redirect to Conservatism in Hong Kong#Conservative localism, where the party is described. 2016 Hong Kong Legislative Council candidates' disqualification controversy mentions but does not describe the party. Cunard (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although a consensus for redirecting has formed, it is currently unclear where this redirect should target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:18, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need a consensus on one specific redirect that is proposed. Closers aren't supposed to insert their own opinions in a AFD decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The corresponding article in Chinese at https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BF%9D%E5%AE%88%E9%BB%A8_(%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF) or zh:保守黨 (香港) has four references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC) I added those references, including trans-titles, to the English article. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional coverage might be found by searching for the party's Chinese name, 保守黨. You might get hits for parties with a similar name in other countries. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Also try to search for both "保守黨" and "香港" https://www.google.com/search?q=%22%E4%BF%9D%E5%AE%88%E9%BB%A8%22++%22%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%22+-wikipedia&sca_esv=563581542&tbs=ar%3A1&tbm=nws&sxsrf=AB5stBhj_khPc-QQfNu42QHSVrCFKV83gQ%3A1694136913584&ei=UXr6ZJmXI7ee5NoPsoep6AI&ved=0ahUKEwjZg73n75mBAxU3D1kFHbJDCi0Q4dUDCA0&uact=5&oq=%22%E4%BF%9D%E5%AE%88%E9%BB%A8%22++%22%E9%A6%99%E6%B8%AF%22+-wikipedia&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MiICLkv53lrojpu6giICAi6aaZ5rivIiAtd2lraXBlZGlhSJ8hUOENWJkdcAB4AJABAJgBc6AB4QOqAQM1LjG4AQPIAQD4AQH4AQLCAgUQABiiBMICCBAhGKABGMMEiAYB&sclient=gws-wiz-news Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:39, 8 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!} 23:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adama Traoré (footballer, born 2000)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV to be found, only made two appearances in Belgium's second tier a year and a half ago. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Ivory Coast, and Belgium. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails GNG/SIGCOV, per nom. Drat8sub (talk) 17:13, 10 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.